Antrobus v. Unified Court System
- Louis Stanton
- 1:21-cv-00380
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Antrobus v. Unified Court System, Judge McMahon dismissed all plaintiffs except Andre Antrobus after they failed to complete required filing steps.
All listed plaintiffs other than Andre Antrobus were dismissed from the action without prejudice. The case proceeds with Antrobus as the sole plaintiff. The court also denied fee-free status for an appeal.
What happened
Antrobus v. Unified Court System involved several detainees listed as plaintiffs, but only Andre Antrobus signed the complaint and submitted the required application to proceed without paying filing fees.
The court had ordered the other listed plaintiffs to pay the filing fee or submit their own applications and authorizations, and to sign the complaint or provide declarations replacing their signatures. They did not comply.
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the complaint without prejudice as to every plaintiff except Andre Antrobus. The case will continue with Antrobus as the sole plaintiff, and the court denied fee-free status for any appeal.
The detailed version
- Antrobus v. Unified Court System · No. 1:21-cv-00380
- Louis Stanton
- Feb. 16, 2021
Background
The complaint listed multiple detainees as plaintiffs. The court's January 15, 2021 order required each plaintiff either to pay the $402 filing fee or submit a completed application to proceed without paying the fee, along with a prisoner authorization. Because Andre Antrobus was the only person who signed the complaint, the order also required the other listed plaintiffs to sign it or submit a declaration replacing their signatures.
Ruling
Only Andre Antrobus submitted an application to proceed without paying the filing fee and a prisoner authorization. The court therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice as to all plaintiffs except Antrobus. The action will proceed with Antrobus as the sole plaintiff. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The order directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to the plaintiffs and record service on the docket.
Effect
The dismissal did not bar the other plaintiffs from refiling because the court expressly used the term “without prejudice.” The opinion also states that the order was returned as undeliverable for many of the listed plaintiffs.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.