Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 9, 2021

Smith v. Tishman

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:21-cv-02990
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
EmploymentCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Smith v. Tishman, Judge McMahon dismissed Smith’s duplicative employment-discrimination complaint without prejudice to his pending related case.

Who this affects

Stewart M. Smith’s duplicate lawsuit was dismissed; his earlier related case under docket number 1:21-CV-2915 was not dismissed by this order. The order also denied Smith permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.

What happened

Smith v. Tishman involved a pro se complaint by Stewart M. Smith claiming employment discrimination against AECOM Tishman and other defendants. Smith had already filed a substantially similar case against the same defendants based on the same facts.

Judge McMahon dismissed this complaint as duplicative because the earlier case was still pending under docket number 1:21-CV-2915. The dismissal was without prejudice to Smith’s pending case.

Judge McMahon also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Smith permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. The order directed the Clerk of Court to mail Smith a copy and record service on the docket.

The detailed version

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

Case
Smith v. Tishman · No. 1:21-cv-02990
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Apr. 9, 2021

Background

Stewart M. Smith, appearing without a lawyer, brought an employment-discrimination action against AECOM Tishman and other defendants. The court stated that Smith had previously submitted a substantially similar complaint against the same defendants arising from the same facts. That earlier case was pending in the same court under docket number 1:21-CV-2915. A footnote stated that, according to the docket, Smith had not yet paid the filing fees or requested permission to proceed without paying them in that earlier case.

Ruling

The court dismissed the complaint as duplicative, explaining that litigating a second lawsuit raising the same claims would serve no useful purpose. The dismissal was without prejudice to Smith’s pending case under docket number 1:21-CV-2915. The court also 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 proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal.

Other Order

The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Smith a copy of the order and note service on the docket. Judge Colleen McMahon signed the order on April 9, 2021.

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.