Fredricks v. Correction Officer John Doe
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-05792
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Fredricks v. Correction Officer John Doe, Judge McMahon dismissed the duplicative action without prejudice to litigation in an earlier related case.
Nigel Fredricks’s duplicative federal constitutional-rights action was dismissed without prejudice; his litigation in the earlier related case was not dismissed by this order.
What happened
In Fredricks v. Correction Officer John Doe, Nigel Fredricks, representing himself, alleged that the defendants violated his federal constitutional rights. The opinion states that he was being held at the George R. Vierno Center on Rikers Island.
The court found that this action’s complaint was identical to an amended complaint Fredricks filed in an earlier related case, docket number 1:20-CV-5738. Because the two cases raised the same claims, the court concluded that litigating this duplicative action would serve no useful purpose.
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed this action without prejudice to Fredricks’s litigation in the earlier related case. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, after certifying that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Fredricks v. Correction Officer John Doe · No. 1:20-cv-05792
- Colleen McMahon
- Aug. 3, 2020
Background
Nigel Fredricks, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Correction Officer John Doe and other defendants. He alleged that the defendants violated his federal constitutional rights. The opinion states that Fredricks was being held at the George R. Vierno Center on Rikers Island.
Reason for dismissal
The court received Fredricks’s complaint in this action on the same date that it received his amended complaint in an earlier related case, docket number 1:20-CV-5738. The court determined that the complaint in this action was identical to the amended complaint in that earlier case and raised the same claims. The court therefore concluded that litigating this action would serve no useful purpose because it was duplicative.
Ruling
The court dismissed the action without prejudice to Fredricks’s litigation in the earlier related case. “Without prejudice” was the court’s stated disposition; the opinion does not use that phrase to describe any other option. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Fredricks and note service on the docket.
Judge Colleen McMahon certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. The court therefore denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees for that appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.