Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 6, 2020

Avent v. Unknown Charity Ass. Att. Generals

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:19-cv-10923
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Avent v. James, Judge McMahon dismissed the complaint after Avent failed to file the required amended complaint, declined supplemental jurisdiction, and denied appeal fee-waiver status.

Who this affects

Reuben Avent, whose complaint was dismissed. Any state-law claims he may have been asserting were not heard under supplemental jurisdiction, and fee-waiver status was denied for an appeal.

What happened

In Reuben Avent v. NYS Att. Gen. Letitia James, et al., the court had ordered Avent to file an amended complaint within 60 days and later extended the deadline to March 30, 2020.

Avent did not file the amended complaint. The court therefore dismissed the complaint under the statute governing screening of cases filed without upfront filing fees and declined to hear any state-law claims Avent might have been asserting.

Chief Judge Colleen McMahon ordered the dismissal and denied Avent permission to appeal without paying the filing fee, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Avent v. Unknown Charity Ass. Att. Generals · No. 1:19-cv-10923
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Apr. 6, 2020

Background

On January 17, 2020, the court directed Reuben Avent to file an amended complaint within 60 days and warned that failing to do so would result in dismissal. The court later extended the deadline to March 30, 2020. The opinion states that Avent did not file an amended complaint.

Ruling

The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)-(ii), the provision governing screening of a complaint filed without paying the filing fee upfront. The court also declined under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims, over any state-law claims Avent may have been asserting.

Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon directed the Clerk of Court to mail Avent a copy of the order and record service on the docket. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.