Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 16, 2020

Ingram-Robinson v. Department of Social Services

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:19-cv-11072
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro SeMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

Ingram-Robinson v. Department of Social Services: Judge McMahon granted 30 more days to amend the complaint and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.

Who this affects

Kahari Sha-Mel Ingram-Robinson and the status of her case.

What happened

In Ingram-Robinson v. Department of Social Services, Kahari Sha-Mel Ingram-Robinson, representing herself, sued defendants identified in the caption as the Commissioner of the Westchester County Department of Social Service and case workers and supervisors. The court had dismissed the complaint for failing to state a legally sufficient claim but allowed 30 days to file an amended complaint.

Instead of amending the complaint, Ingram-Robinson filed an appeal. The Second Circuit dismissed that appeal after she did not pay the $505 filing fee or request permission to proceed without paying it.

On July 16, 2020, Chief Judge Colleen McMahon granted Ingram-Robinson an additional 30 days to file an amended complaint. The court said it would enter a civil judgment consistent with the earlier dismissal if she did not amend or show good cause. It also denied permission to appeal this order without paying the filing fee.

The detailed version

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

Case
Ingram-Robinson v. Department of Social Services · No. 1:19-cv-11072
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
July 16, 2020

Background

Kahari Sha-Mel Ingram-Robinson brought the action without a lawyer against defendants identified in the caption as the Commissioner of the Westchester County Department of Social Service and case workers and supervisors.

On January 10, 2020, the court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The court gave Plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint. Instead, on January 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.

Appeal

The Second Circuit ordered that the appeal would be dismissed effective May 21, 2020, unless Plaintiff paid the $505 filing fee or filed a motion to proceed without paying the fee. Plaintiff did neither, and the Second Circuit dismissed the appeal on June 15, 2020. The district court received the appellate court’s mandate on July 8, 2020.

Ruling

Because Plaintiff was representing herself, the court granted an additional 30 days to file an amended complaint that complied with the January 10 dismissal order. Plaintiff was required to submit the amended complaint to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit within 30 days of the order, label it “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 19-CV-11072 (CM). The court stated that no summons would issue at that time.

If Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint within the allowed period and did not show good cause for the failure, the court would enter a civil judgment consistent with the January 10 dismissal order and direct the Clerk to terminate the matter. The Clerk was directed to mail Plaintiff this order and the January 10 dismissal order and to keep the matter open until a civil judgment was entered.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Plaintiff permission to appeal without paying the filing fee. This order did not decide the merits of any amended complaint.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.