Kellier v. Acosta
- Laura Swain
- 1:21-cv-03923
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Kellier v. Acosta, Judge Swain dismissed Joshua Kellier’s duplicate civil-rights complaint without prejudice.
Joshua Kellier and the defendants named in the complaint: NAICA Anthony Acosta, DHS Mrs. Montagna, DHS Mrs. Hyler, NAICA Julius Doe, Officer Cheung Doe of the 5th Precinct, and Skyway Men’s Shelter.
What happened
In Kellier v. Acosta, Joshua Kellier, representing himself, sued under a federal civil-rights law, claiming that the defendants violated his constitutional rights. The opinion says he had already filed a substantially similar case naming the same defendants and raising the same claims.
The court concluded that litigating this duplicate lawsuit would serve no useful purpose. It dismissed the complaint without prejudice to Kellier’s pending case, where he may assert these claims in an amended complaint that follows the federal amendment rule.
Judge Swain also vacated the order requiring Kellier to pay filing fees or seek permission to proceed without paying them. The court said an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Kellier v. Acosta · No. 1:21-cv-03923
- Laura Swain
- May 26, 2021
Background
Joshua Kellier, appearing without a lawyer, brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing claims against certain state actors for violations of constitutional rights. The opinion does not describe the underlying alleged violations in detail. It states that Kellier had previously filed a substantially similar complaint concerning his experiences in the New York City homeless shelter system.
The earlier pending case, docket number 21-CV-3921, names the same defendants named in this complaint, along with additional defendants, and raises the same claims. The court also noted that Kellier had previously filed another complaint asserting similar claims, which had been dismissed after he was given permission to amend because it did not state a legally sufficient claim.
Court’s Analysis
The court determined that this action was duplicative of Kellier’s pending case. Because the same claims against the same defendants could be addressed in the pending case, the court found that no useful purpose would be served by litigating this separate lawsuit.
The court stated that Kellier may assert these claims against the defendants in an amended complaint in the pending case, provided the amendment complies with Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Disposition
The court dismissed Kellier’s complaint without prejudice as duplicative. It vacated the earlier order directing him either to pay filing fees or submit an application for permission to proceed without paying them. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The clerk was directed to mail Kellier a copy of the order and record service on the docket.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.