Syville v. City of New York
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-05495
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Syville v. City of New York, Judge McMahon dismissed Syville’s duplicate civil-rights complaint without prejudice to the pending case.
Alphonso Syville’s duplicate lawsuit was dismissed, while his substantially similar pending case under docket number 20-CV-4633 was not dismissed by this order.
What happened
In Syville v. City of New York, Alphonso Syville, representing himself, sued the City of New York and other defendants under a federal civil-rights law. He challenged conditions at the Help Meyers MICA Shelter on Wards Island and the response to the threat of COVID-19.
The court said Syville had already filed a substantially similar lawsuit raising the same claims. That earlier case was pending under docket number 20-CV-4633 before another judge in the same court, so the court found no useful purpose in litigating the duplicate lawsuit.
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed this complaint as duplicative, without prejudice to Syville’s pending case. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Syville v. City of New York · No. 1:20-cv-05495
- Colleen McMahon
- Sept. 9, 2020
Background
Alphonso Syville, appearing without a lawyer, brought a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights law that permits claims against government actors for violations of federal rights. He raised claims about conditions at the Help Meyers MICA Shelter on Wards Island and the response to the threat of COVID-19. The defendants were the City of New York, Mayor Bill de Blasio, an unidentified director of the Department of Homeless Services, Steven Banks, and Oxiris Barbot.
Reason for dismissal
The court stated that Syville had previously submitted a substantially similar complaint asserting the same claims. That earlier case was pending in the same court under docket number 20-CV-4633 before Judge Paul G. Gardephe. Because this action duplicated the pending case, the court concluded that no useful purpose would be served by litigating it separately.
Ruling
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the complaint as duplicative and stated that the dismissal was without prejudice to Syville’s pending case. The order explained that Syville could request permission to amend the pending case if he wanted to add claims or defendants, and instructed him to identify that case by docket number 20-CV-4633 (PGG) in any such submission.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying the appellate filing fees.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.