Swint v. Mueller
- Laura Swain
- 1:21-cv-02966
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Swint v. Mueller, Judge Swain dismissed Robert James Swint’s duplicate complaint without prejudice to his pending action.
Robert James Swint’s duplicate lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice; the opinion treats him as the sole plaintiff in this action. The defendants named in the complaint were not adjudicated on the merits.
What happened
In Swint v. Mueller, Robert James Swint, representing himself, sued several defendants and alleged that they violated his rights. The court treated Swint as the only plaintiff because he was the only person who signed the complaint.
The court found that Swint had already filed an identical complaint involving the same claims and defendants. It dismissed this case as duplicative, without prejudice to his pending action.
Judge Swain also denied permission to appeal without paying court fees, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Swint v. Mueller · No. 1:21-cv-02966
- Laura Swain
- Apr. 13, 2021
Background
Robert James Swint, appearing without a lawyer, filed a complaint alleging that the defendants violated his rights. Although the caption listed several other plaintiffs, only Swint signed the complaint. The court therefore considered Swint the sole plaintiff because a person representing himself cannot act on behalf of other individuals.
Reason for dismissal
The court stated that Swint had previously submitted an identical complaint that was pending under another case number. Because the two complaints raised the same claims against the same defendants, the court concluded that filing and litigating this duplicate lawsuit would serve no useful purpose.
The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice to Swint’s pending action and directed the Clerk of Court to mail him a copy of the order and note service on the docket.
Appeal-related ruling
Judge Laura Taylor Swain certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. The court therefore denied permission to appeal without paying the required court fees.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.