Wright v. New York City Housing Authority
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-10941
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Wright v. New York City Housing Authority, Judge McMahon dismissed the duplicate lawsuit without prejudice.
Tyreen E. Wright's duplicate lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice; his substantially similar pending action under case number 20-CV-11054 (AJN) was not dismissed by this order.
What happened
Wright v. New York City Housing Authority was brought by Tyreen E. Wright, who represented himself. He alleged that his former employer discriminated and retaliated against him because of his religion and disability under several federal laws.
The court found that Wright had a substantially similar case pending against the same defendant. It dismissed this lawsuit without prejudice as duplicative of case number 20-CV-11054 (AJN), leaving open the possibility of pursuing the claims in that pending case. The court also ended all other pending matters in this case.
Judge Colleen McMahon ordered the dismissal and stated that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, so Wright could not proceed without paying the appeal filing fees.
The detailed version
- Wright v. New York City Housing Authority · No. 1:20-cv-10941
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 5, 2021
Background
Tyreen E. Wright, appearing without a lawyer, sued the New York City Housing Authority under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Family and Medical Leave Act. He alleged that his former employer discriminated and retaliated against him based on his religion and disability.
Reason for Dismissal
The court stated that Wright had submitted a substantially similar complaint that was already pending under case number 20-CV-11054 (AJN). Because the two cases raised the same claims against the same defendants, the court concluded that continuing this duplicate lawsuit would serve no useful purpose.
Ruling
The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice as duplicative of the pending action. This means the dismissal did not bar Wright from pursuing the matter in the pending case. The court noted that Wright could seek to amend that pending case to add new defendants, allegations, or claims in compliance with Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. All other pending matters in this case were terminated.
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 required fees. The opinion does not decide whether Wright's discrimination or retaliation claims have merit.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.