Avent v. Unknown Charity Ass. Att. Generals
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-10923
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Reuben Avent v. NYS Att Gen. Letitia James, Judge McMahon granted more time to amend, but denied fee-free appeal status and warned of dismissal.
Reuben Avent received additional time to amend his complaint but was denied fee-free appeal status; the defendants remained subject to the possibility of an amended complaint and a later ruling.
What happened
In Reuben Avent v. NYS Att Gen. Letitia James, et al., Reuben Avent, who was incarcerated and representing himself, alleged that defendants delayed his application for a charitable solicitation registration number because of his race.
The court had previously found that the complaint did not state a claim for relief and included defendants protected from lawsuits by immunity, but allowed Avent to amend it. Avent appealed that non-final order and later asked for more time because his address had changed and he needed additional time to meet deadlines.
Judge Colleen McMahon granted Avent’s request for more time and ordered him to file an amended complaint within 14 days. The court warned that failing to do so would lead to dismissal for failure to state a claim and for naming defendants immune from suit, and denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Avent v. Unknown Charity Ass. Att. Generals · No. 1:19-cv-10923
- Colleen McMahon
- Mar. 16, 2020
Background
Reuben Avent, who was incarcerated and proceeding without a lawyer, sued defendants including New York Attorney General Letitia James. He alleged that defendants discriminated against him because of his race by delaying processing of his application for a charitable solicitation registration number for his proposed nonprofit agency.
Earlier order and appeal
In an earlier order dated February 6, 2020, the court held that Avent’s complaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted and that it asserted claims against defendants who were immune from suit. The court nevertheless gave Avent permission to amend the complaint to correct its deficiencies. Avent filed a notice of appeal from that non-final order.
The court explained that an improper appeal from a non-final order does not remove the district court’s authority to continue handling the case. The court stated that if Avent chose not to amend his complaint, it would enter judgment, allowing him to appeal then.
Ruling
The court granted Avent’s request for an extension of time. It directed him to file an amended complaint within 14 days of the order. The court stated that if he failed to meet that deadline, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim and for asserting claims against defendants immune from suit.
The court also certified that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Avent permission to proceed without paying the required fees for an appeal. The order directed the clerk to mail Avent a copy and record service on the docket. Judge Colleen McMahon signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.