Jarvois v. Ferrara
- Gregory Woods
- 1:18-cv-03997
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Jarvois v. Ferrara, Judge Woods gave Fritz T. Jarvois 21 days to amend his complaint and denied status to appeal without prepaying fees.
Fritz T. Jarvois, who was representing himself, and defendants Carole Ferrara and Thomas Libretti; the Clerk was directed to mail the specified documents to Jarvois.
What happened
In Jarvois v. Ferrara and Libretti, the court addressed whether Fritz T. Jarvois’s latest filing was an amended complaint. Earlier, the court had dismissed some claims permanently and others while allowing Jarvois to try pleading them again. After several orders and a final judgment that was later vacated, Jarvois submitted a letter that was not clearly labeled as a complaint but contained allegations that might have been intended as one.
Because Jarvois was representing himself and appeared confused by the earlier orders, the court gave him another 21 days to file an amended complaint addressing the claims previously dismissed without permanently barring them. If he filed nothing else, the court would treat his latest filing as the amended complaint.
Judge Gregory H. Woods also ruled that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Jarvois permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The Clerk was directed to mail the order and several earlier filings to Jarvois.
The detailed version
- Jarvois v. Ferrara · No. 1:18-cv-03997
- Gregory Woods
- Mar. 5, 2020
Background
On August 19, 2019, the court dismissed some of Fritz T. Jarvois’s claims with prejudice, meaning those claims could not be refiled, and dismissed other claims without prejudice, meaning Jarvois was allowed to try pleading them again. The court gave him 30 days to amend his complaint as to the latter claims.
On September 21, 2019, after Jarvois had not filed an amended complaint, the court entered final judgment for Carole Ferrara and Thomas Libretti. On October 21, 2019, the court vacated that judgment because Jarvois had not received the August 19 order until after the case was closed. The court again gave him 30 days to amend.
Jarvois then submitted a letter on October 30, 2019. The court was unsure whether he intended that letter to be an amended complaint because it was not styled as a complaint, although it contained allegations suggesting that he might have intended it to serve that purpose.
Ruling
Because Jarvois was representing himself and appeared confused by the earlier orders, the court granted him another opportunity to file an amended complaint. He was given 21 days from the March 5, 2020 order to replead the claims dismissed without prejudice in the August 19 order. If he made no further submission, the court would treat the October 30 filing, Docket No. 43, as his amended complaint.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Jarvois permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The Clerk was directed to mail the order and Docket Nos. 35, 37, 42, and 43 to Jarvois by first-class and certified mail.
Scope of the Order
This order does not explain the underlying claims or the reasons for the August 19 dismissals. It addresses amendment of the complaint and appeal-related filing status rather than deciding the merits of the claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.