Greene v. Sampson
- Philip Halpern
- 7:18-cv-06103
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Greene v. Sampson, Judge Halpern dismissed the case because the defendants’ bankruptcy discharge barred continuing the civil action.
Kivia C. Greene and the remaining defendants, Diane and Sean Sampson; the case was dismissed and closed.
What happened
In Greene v. Sampson, the court considered whether Kivia C. Greene’s case could continue against Diane and Sean Sampson after they received a bankruptcy discharge. The court had previously ordered Greene to explain why the case should not be dismissed.
Greene responded with written material, photographs, allegations about conduct involving her neighbors, and references to other events. She argued that the court could impose conditions on the Sampsons despite their bankruptcy discharge, but she cited no legal authority allowing the case to continue.
Judge Philip M. Halpern ruled that Greene had not shown why the case could proceed despite the bankruptcy discharge injunction. The court dismissed the case and directed the clerk to close it.
The detailed version
- Greene v. Sampson · No. 7:18-cv-06103
- Philip Halpern
- Mar. 15, 2021
Background
The remaining defendants were Diane and Sean Sampson. The court stated that the Sampsons had been discharged in bankruptcy and that Greene had notice of both the bankruptcy case and the discharge order. Under 11 U.S.C. § 524(a)(2), a bankruptcy discharge operates as an injunction against continuing a civil action such as this one. The court also stated that Greene did not object to the discharge within the time allowed, and that the deadline for objecting to discharge of the debt had expired under 11 U.S.C. § 523(c) and Bankruptcy Rule 4007(c).
Order to show cause and response
On February 2, 2021, the court ordered Greene to explain why the action should not be dismissed against the Sampsons. The court warned that failing to provide a legally sufficient response would result in dismissal. Greene responded on March 5, 2021, with three pages of text and seven pages of photographs. Her response described the conduct that led her to bring the action, made new allegations involving trespassing, attempted burglary, and disturbances near her home, and referred to the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. She argued that the court could impose “stipulations” on the Sampsons despite their bankruptcy discharge, but provided no authority supporting that position.
Ruling
The court found that Greene’s response did not show why the action could proceed in light of the discharge injunction. Although the court expressed sensitivity to Greene’s situation and stated that it did not condone the alleged intimidation tactics, it concluded that 11 U.S.C. §§ 524(a)(2) and 523(c), together with Bankruptcy Rule 4007(c), prevented the action from continuing against the Sampsons. Judge Philip M. Halpern therefore dismissed the case and directed the clerk to close it. The opinion does not add a “with prejudice” or “without prejudice” designation.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.