David-Barlow v. N.Y. N.J Marriage Lic. Agency's
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-03136
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In David-Barlow v. N.Y. N.J. Marriage Lic. Agency’s, Judge McMahon dismissed one plaintiff and gave the other 30 days to confirm he would proceed.
Sarah M. David-Barlow was removed as a plaintiff under the name “Sarah M. Barlow” used in the ruling. Clinton C. Barlow was given 30 days to confirm whether he wished to continue, and permission to proceed without paying appeal fees was denied.
What happened
In David-Barlow v. N.Y. N.J. Marriage Lic. Agency’s, Clinton C. Barlow and Sarah M. David-Barlow, representing themselves, claimed that the temporary closure of New York City’s Marriage Bureau during the COVID-19 pandemic violated their constitutional rights. Sarah did not sign the complaint or submit an application to proceed without paying filing fees.
The court dismissed the plaintiff it identified in the order as Sarah M. Barlow. It directed Clinton C. Barlow to tell the court within 30 days whether he wished to continue. If he did not respond and could not show good cause, the court said the matter would be dismissed without prejudice.
Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon also denied permission to proceed without paying fees for any appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The order did not decide whether the temporary closure violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
The detailed version
- David-Barlow v. N.Y. N.J Marriage Lic. Agency's · No. 1:20-cv-03136
- Colleen McMahon
- Aug. 3, 2020
Background
Clinton C. Barlow and Sarah M. David-Barlow filed the action without lawyers. They alleged that the temporary closure of the New York City Marriage Bureau during the COVID-19 pandemic violated their constitutional rights.
Although Sarah M. David-Barlow appeared as a plaintiff in the complaint’s caption, she did not sign the complaint or submit an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court had previously directed her to submit that application and a declaration confirming that she intended to proceed as a plaintiff. Neither plaintiff had communicated with the court after filing the complaint.
Ruling
The order states: “Sarah M. Barlow is dismissed as a plaintiff.” The caption identifies that plaintiff as Sarah M. David-Barlow, so the order uses a different version of her name when stating the dismissal.
The court directed Clinton C. Barlow to notify it within 30 days whether he wished to proceed. The court stated that if he failed to comply and could not show good cause for the failure, “the matter will be dismissed without prejudice.” That conditional dismissal was not entered by this order.
Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon also 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 proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Effect of the Order
The order addressed the plaintiffs’ participation in the case and the filing-fee issue. It did not decide the merits of the constitutional challenge to the Marriage Bureau’s temporary closure. The classification is procedural because the order did not reach that underlying legal question.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.