Truell v. City of New York
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-00992
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Truell v. City of New York, Judge McMahon extended James Truell’s deadline to amend his complaint and denied fee-free appeal status.
James Truell, the self-represented plaintiff, had to file an amended complaint and a change-of-address form within 30 days or the action would be dismissed; the order also denied fee-free status for any appeal.
What happened
In Truell v. City of New York, James Truell, who was representing himself, had not filed the amended complaint the court previously ordered. An earlier order was returned as undeliverable, and a later amended complaint was filed in a different case and raised new matters.
The court gave Truell 30 days from the order’s date to file an amended complaint addressing the earlier order and to submit a change-of-address form. The amended complaint must identify case number 20-CV-0992 (CM), and no summons would issue at that time.
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon warned that the action would be dismissed if Truell did not comply. Judge McMahon also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Truell v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-00992
- Louis Stanton
- June 16, 2020
Background
James Truell filed the complaint without a lawyer. On March 9, 2020, the court ordered him to file an amended complaint addressing deficiencies identified in that order. The court mailed the order to the George R. Vierno Center, which was Truell’s address of record, but the mailing was returned as undeliverable. On May 21, 2020, the court remailed the order to the Otis B. Bantum Center, which the New York City Department of Corrections website identified as Truell’s current address. Truell had not filed the required amended complaint.
Truell filed an amended complaint in a different case, Truell v. Doe, No. 20-CV-0839. The court stated that the other case required a prisoner authorization rather than an amended complaint, and that the filing concerned entirely new matters. The court therefore could not determine whether Truell intended the filing for this case and filed it in the other case by mistake.
Order
The court granted Truell an extension of time to comply with the March 9 order. Within 30 days from June 16, 2020, he had to file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies discussed in that order and label it with docket number 20-CV-0992 (CM). He also had to complete and return the attached change-of-address form. The court stated that it would not change the address on the docket unless Truell submitted that form and reminded him to notify the court in writing of address changes.
The Clerk of Court was directed to mail the order to Truell at the Otis B. Bantum Center and note service on the docket. No summons would issue at that time. The court stated that, if Truell complied, the case would be processed under the Clerk’s Office procedures; if he failed to comply within the allowed time, the action would be dismissed.
Appeal and classification
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied fee-free status for an appeal. This order was procedural: it extended a filing deadline, required an address update, and set conditions for continuing the case without deciding the underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.