Sheppard v. Department of Corrections
- John Cronan
- 1:20-cv-09405
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Cyril Sheppard v. New York City Department of Corrections, Judge McMahon said the case could not be reopened while Sheppard’s appeal was pending.
Cyril Sheppard was affected directly. The order did not decide the merits of his claims against the New York City Department of Corrections or the other defendants.
What happened
Cyril Sheppard v. New York City Department of Corrections began when the court dismissed Sheppard’s case after he did not timely pay the filing fee or submit paperwork to proceed without prepaying it. The dismissal did not prevent him from filing the claims again, and he was not charged a filing fee.
Sheppard later submitted the required paperwork and filed an appeal, explaining that problems at the facility where he was incarcerated caused the delay. Because the appeal transferred control over the appealed dismissal to the appeals court, the district court said it could not reopen the case while the appeal was pending.
Judge Colleen McMahon gave Sheppard 30 days to withdraw the appeal and notify the district court, after which the court said it would reopen the case and address his paperwork. Alternatively, Sheppard could file a new complaint with the required forms, which would receive a new docket number.
The detailed version
- Sheppard v. Department of Corrections · No. 1:20-cv-09405
- John Cronan
- Jan. 7, 2021
Background
The court had dismissed Cyril Sheppard’s action by an order dated December 15, 2020, because he had not paid the filing fee or submitted an application to proceed without prepaying fees and a prisoner authorization. The court stated that Sheppard was not charged a filing fee and that the dismissal allowed him to bring his claims in a new complaint.
On December 19, 2020, Sheppard gave the required application and authorization to prison officials for mailing. The court received them on December 22. Sheppard also filed a notice of appeal and explained that problems at the facility where he was incarcerated had caused the delay. He requested more time to appeal, although the court noted that his appeal was not late.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that filing a notice of appeal transfers authority over the parts of the case involved in the appeal to the appeals court. Because Sheppard had appealed the dismissal, the district court said it could not reopen the action while that appeal was pending, even though he had submitted the missing paperwork.
Ruling
The court granted Sheppard 30 days from the date of the order to withdraw his appeal and notify the district court. If he did so and the district court regained authority over the case, the court said it would reopen the action and address his application to proceed without prepaying fees. The court also stated that the complaint would then be screened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Alternatively, because the action had been dismissed without prejudice and no filing fee had been charged, Sheppard could file a new complaint asserting the same claims, together with the required application and prisoner authorization. The clerk was directed to send him a prisoner civil-rights complaint form and the related paperwork. The new action would receive a new docket number. The order did not decide the merits of Sheppard’s underlying claims.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.