Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 1, 2021

Avent v. Keybank

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:21-cv-01287
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Avent v. Keybank, Chief Judge McMahon dismissed a duplicative complaint without prejudice because Avent’s substantially similar case was pending.

Who this affects

Reuben Avent’s duplicate lawsuit was dismissed, while his substantially similar case under docket number 1:21-CV-01466 remained pending.

What happened

In Avent v. Keybank, Reuben Avent sued Keybank, the New York State Department of Labor, and employees of both entities, claiming violations of federally protected rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1982. Avent was representing himself.

Avent first filed this complaint without paying the filing fee or asking to proceed without paying it. He then filed a substantially similar complaint with such a request, and that case remained pending under docket number 1:21-CV-01466.

Chief Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed this complaint without prejudice as duplicative and stated that it was dismissed in favor of Avent’s pending case. She also denied permission to appeal without paying fees because she certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Avent v. Keybank · No. 1:21-cv-01287
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Mar. 1, 2021

Background

Reuben Avent, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1982 against Keybank, the New York State Department of Labor, and employees of both entities. He alleged that the defendants violated his federally protected rights.

Avent submitted this complaint on February 12, 2021, without paying the required fees or requesting permission to proceed without paying them. On February 18, 2021, he submitted a substantially similar complaint with an application to proceed without paying the filing fee. That related case was pending under docket number 1:21-CV-01466.

Reason for Dismissal

The court concluded that the two complaints raised the same claims. Because the substantially similar case was already pending, the court found that no useful purpose would be served by litigating this duplicate lawsuit.

Disposition

Chief Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the complaint without prejudice to Avent’s pending case under docket number 1:21-CV-01466. The order states that the complaint was dismissed as duplicative. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees for that appeal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.