McDaniel v. The People of the City of New York
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-00254
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In McDaniel v. The People, Judge McMahon dismissed the action without prejudice to a related case because it sought to amend another case.
Curtis McDaniel was affected by the dismissal and by the direction that he not be charged the filing fee for this action. The Clerk and the official responsible for his custody were directed not to collect or encumber that fee.
What happened
In McDaniel v. The People of the City of New York, Curtis McDaniel filed this action after an earlier case was already pending before another judge. He first said this action was not duplicative, but later said it was an amended report from that earlier case.
McDaniel asked the court to dismiss an excessive-force claim and replace the earlier case’s remaining claims with the contents of this submission. He also said correctional staff had delayed his mail for retaliatory reasons. The court did not decide those allegations.
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed this action without prejudice to the earlier case, explaining that she could not issue orders in a case assigned to another judge. The Clerk was told not to charge the filing fee, and the court denied fee-free status for any appeal.
The detailed version
- McDaniel v. The People of the City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-00254
- Colleen McMahon
- June 2, 2020
Background
The court had directed Curtis McDaniel to explain why this action, which it called “McDaniel II,” should not be dismissed as duplicative of an earlier related proceeding. The court had explained that, if it dismissed the action as duplicative, McDaniel would not be charged the $350 filing fee.
McDaniel responded that this action was not duplicative. The court then directed him to submit an application to proceed without paying the filing fee and authorization concerning his prisoner account, or to pay the fee. The opinion states that he did neither.
McDaniel later wrote that this action was “the amended report” of an earlier related case, No. 19-CV-7680, which was pending before another district judge and had been referred to a magistrate judge. He asked the court to dismiss an excessive-force claim and have the rest of the submission replace the earlier case. His request appeared to relate to an earlier unsuccessful effort to amend that case; he also claimed that correctional staff had delayed his mail for retaliatory reasons.
Court’s Reasoning
The court concluded that McDaniel was attempting to amend the complaint in the earlier related case rather than start a new action. Because that case was pending before another district judge, this court stated that it could not issue orders in it. The court did not decide the excessive-force, retaliation, or other underlying allegations.
Ruling
The court dismissed McDaniel II without prejudice to the earlier related case. The court stated that McDaniel would need to request permission to amend his complaint in that other case if he wished to do so.
The Clerk was directed not to charge McDaniel the $350 filing fee for this action. The court also directed that the official responsible for his custody not deduct or encumber funds from his prison trust account for this lawsuit. Finally, the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.