Cameron v. Clark
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:21-cv-02623
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Cameron v. Clark, Judge McMahon directed filing as an amended complaint in a related case and administratively closed this duplicate action.
Gilbert Cameron and the defendants named in the complaint. Cameron’s filing was moved into the earlier related case, this docket was administratively closed, and future submissions about the claims were directed to use docket number 21-CV-2383 (CM).
What happened
In Cameron v. Clark, Gilbert Cameron, who was detained at Rikers Island and represented himself, brought a federal civil-rights lawsuit claiming malicious prosecution against the named defendants. He had already filed a substantially similar lawsuit against the same defendants about the same events in another case that was still pending.
The court found that the new complaint was identical to the earlier one except for additional attachments. It directed the clerk to file this complaint as an amended complaint in the earlier case and administratively close this case. The court also instructed Cameron to use the earlier case number for future submissions. Cameron had not filed an application to proceed without paying court fees or the required prisoner authorization.
Judge Colleen McMahon ordered these actions and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, so Cameron was denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. The order did not decide the merits of the malicious-prosecution claims.
The detailed version
- Cameron v. Clark · No. 1:21-cv-02623
- Colleen McMahon
- Mar. 29, 2021
Background
Gilbert Cameron, who was detained at the Otis Bantum Correctional Center on Rikers Island, filed this case without a lawyer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. He asserted malicious-prosecution claims against DA Darcel Clark; ADA Bruce Birns; ADA Dawn E. Guglielmo; DA Robert T. Johnson; Hon. Nicole S. Iacovetta; Hon. Margaret L. Clancy; ADA Clara H. Salzberg; and Letitia James, New York State Attorney General.
The court noted that Cameron had already filed a substantially similar complaint against the same defendants concerning the same events. That earlier action was pending before the same court under docket number 21-CV-2383 (CM). The court stated that the present complaint was identical to the earlier complaint but included several additional pages of attachments. It therefore concluded that Cameron likely intended to submit this filing as an amended complaint in the earlier action.
Court’s Action
The court directed the clerk to take three actions: file the complaint in this case as an amended complaint in docket number 21-CV-2383 (CM); administratively close this case, docket number 21-CV-2623 (CM); and mail Cameron a copy of the order while noting service on the docket. Cameron was instructed to include docket number 21-CV-2383 (CM) on any future submissions concerning his claims.
The opinion also states that Cameron did not submit an application to proceed without paying filing fees or a required 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 proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Classification and Effect
This was a procedural order concerning a duplicate lawsuit and docket administration. The court did not decide whether Cameron’s malicious-prosecution claims were legally valid. The case was administratively closed, while the complaint was directed to proceed as an amended complaint in the earlier related action. Judge Colleen McMahon entered the order on March 29, 2021.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.