Sheppard v. Brann
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:21-cv-02385
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Sheppard v. Brann, Judge McMahon directed filing in an earlier case and administratively closed this duplicate lawsuit.
Cyril Sheppard, defendants Cynthia Brann, Patsy Yang, and Margaret Egan, and the related action under docket number 20-CV-9405 (JPC).
What happened
In Sheppard v. Brann, Cyril Sheppard, who was incarcerated and represented himself, alleged under a federal civil-rights law that the defendants were failing to protect him and other detainees from COVID-19.
The court found that Sheppard had already filed a substantially similar case against the same defendants about the same events and conditions. That earlier case was pending before Judge Cronan, who had ordered Sheppard to file an amended complaint. The court said the new lawsuit would serve no useful purpose and that Sheppard likely intended this complaint to be an amendment in the earlier case.
Judge Colleen McMahon directed the clerk to file this complaint as an amended complaint in the earlier case and administratively close Sheppard v. Brann. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Sheppard v. Brann · No. 1:21-cv-02385
- Colleen McMahon
- Mar. 23, 2021
Background
Cyril Sheppard, who was incarcerated at the Vernon C. Bain Center and proceeded without a lawyer, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that Cynthia Brann, Patsy Yang, and Margaret Egan were failing to protect him and other detainees from contracting COVID-19.
The opinion states that Sheppard had already submitted a substantially similar complaint against the defendants concerning the same events and conditions at the Vernon C. Bain Center. That earlier action was pending before Judge Cronan under docket number 20-CV-9405 (JPC). Judge Cronan had ordered Sheppard to file an amended complaint. The court stated that the present complaint raised the same claims, that separate litigation would serve no useful purpose, and that Sheppard likely intended the pleading to be an amended complaint in the earlier action.
Court’s action
The court directed the clerk to:
- File the complaint in this case as an amended complaint in the action under docket number 20-CV-9405 (JPC);
- Administratively close this case, 21-CV-2385 (CM); and
- Mail Sheppard a copy of the order and note service on the docket.
The opinion also states that Sheppard did not submit an application to proceed without paying the filing fee or a prisoner authorization. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.
Result and classification
This was a procedural order. The court did not decide whether the defendants violated Sheppard’s rights or whether his COVID-19 allegations were legally valid. Instead, it prevented the duplicate action from proceeding separately by directing that the complaint be filed in the earlier related action and administratively closing this case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.