Henry v. Annucci
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-10153
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Henry v. Annucci, Judge McMahon dismissed John Henry’s complaint after he failed to file the amended complaint the court ordered.
John Henry’s complaint was dismissed, and he was denied fee-free appeal status for purposes of an appeal.
What happened
In Henry v. Annucci, the court had ordered John Henry to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The order warned that failing to do so would lead to dismissal.
Henry did not file an amended complaint by the deadline. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or explain the requested amendments.
The court dismissed the complaint under the cited prisoner-screening statute and denied fee-free appeal status because it certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. Chief Judge Colleen McMahon issued the order.
The detailed version
- Henry v. Annucci · No. 1:19-cv-10153
- Colleen McMahon
- July 29, 2020
Background
On April 28, 2020, the court ordered John Henry to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The order expressly stated that the complaint would be dismissed if he did not comply. The opinion states that Henry had filed the complaint without paying the filing fee under the statute allowing that procedure, but it does not describe the underlying claims.
Ruling
Because Henry did not file an amended complaint, the court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The opinion does not add a prejudice qualifier to the dismissal. The clerk was directed to mail Henry a copy of the order and record service on the docket.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. As a result, fee-free appeal status was denied for purposes of an appeal. Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon signed the order.
Scope of the Opinion
The opinion resolves the case based on Henry’s failure to file the required amended complaint. It does not decide the merits of the underlying claims.
Review Note
The supplied case name is Henry v. Annucci, but the opinion’s caption lists John Henry as plaintiff and P.O. John Doe, et al., as defendants. This summary uses the supplied case name.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.