Petties v. Smalls
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-04976
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Petties v. Smalls, Judge McMahon administratively closed a duplicate action because the filing was meant to supplement another case.
The order closes the duplicate action brought by Timothy Derome Petties against Kisha Smalls and D. Riviezzo; it does not resolve the claims described as belonging to the earlier case.
What happened
In Petties v. Smalls, Timothy Derome Petties filed a self-represented civil-rights complaint under a federal law allowing claims for constitutional violations by state officials. That complaint was opened as case 20-CV-4350 (UA).\n\nThe court received a later submission containing the original complaint and supporting documents. Because Petties said those materials supplemented the first case, the Clerk mistakenly opened them as this separate action, 20-CV-4976 (CM).\n\nThe court administratively closed this duplicate action and directed the Clerk to mail the order to Petties and record service. Judge McMahon also denied the status needed to appeal without paying filing costs, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Petties v. Smalls · No. 1:20-cv-04976
- Colleen McMahon
- July 9, 2020
Background
Timothy Derome Petties, Esquire, filed a self-represented complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Kisha Smalls and D. Riviezzo violated his federal constitutional rights. The Clerk opened that complaint under case number 20-CV-4350 (UA).
The court later received a submission from Petties containing a copy of the original complaint and additional supporting documents. His cover letter stated that he was submitting the materials to support the claims in his original filing. The Clerk mistakenly opened the submission as a new civil action under case number 20-CV-4976 (CM).
Ruling
Because Petties made clear that the later materials were intended as a supplement to the complaint in case 20-CV-4350 (UA), the court found that this duplicate action had been opened in error. The court directed the Clerk to administratively close this action, mail Petties a copy of the order, and note service on the docket. The order states that the case under docket number 20-CV-4976 (CM) was closed.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied the status that would allow an appeal without prepaying filing costs. The order did not decide the alleged constitutional violations.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.