Dunn v. Sullivan Co. Jail
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-03081
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Dunn v. Sullivan County Jail, Judge McMahon dismissed the complaint without prejudice after Dunn failed to return a signed complaint page or update his address.
Robert L. Dunn, Sr.; the complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and permission to appeal without paying the filing fee was denied.
What happened
Robert L. Dunn, Sr. filed this lawsuit without a lawyer while he was incarcerated at Sullivan County Jail. The court ordered him to resubmit the complaint’s signature page with an original signature within 30 days.
The order warned that failing to comply would lead to dismissal. The court’s order was returned after Dunn was no longer held at the jail, and he did not provide a forwarding address or otherwise contact the court to comply.
The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling. Judge Colleen McMahon also denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Dunn v. Sullivan Co. Jail · No. 1:20-cv-03081
- Colleen McMahon
- July 27, 2020
Background
Robert L. Dunn, Sr. filed this action without a lawyer while incarcerated in the Sullivan County Jail. On May 14, 2020, the court ordered Dunn to resubmit the complaint’s signature page with an original signature within 30 days. The order stated that failure to comply would result in dismissal.
On June 15, 2020, the order was returned to the court with a notation that Dunn was no longer held at the jail. The opinion states that Dunn had not complied with the signature-page requirement and had not notified the court of a change in mailing address. A footnote adds that Dunn had sent a May 28 letter saying he expected to be released, but he did not provide a forwarding address or initiate further contact with the court.
Ruling
The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice because Dunn failed to comply with the court’s order. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal did not bar him from refiling the action. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.
Effect of the Order
The dismissal ended this action at the district-court level based on noncompliance with the court’s order, rather than a decision on the underlying claims. The opinion does not identify the claims’ substance.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.