Singleton v. City of New York
- Laura Swain
- 1:21-cv-06583
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Singleton v. City of New York, Judge Swain directed Singleton’s letter to another pending case and denied appeal fee-waiver status.
Aaron Singleton, whose letter was directed to his earlier pending action; the order did not resolve his claims against the City of New York or the other defendants.
What happened
Singleton v. City of New York involved two lawsuits filed by Aaron Singleton, who represented himself. The newer lawsuit alleged, among other things, that calls from detainees at Rikers Island were recorded and given to prosecutors. The court had already dismissed that lawsuit without prejudice because it substantially duplicated Singleton’s earlier pending case.
Singleton appealed that dismissal and later sent a letter arguing that his earlier complaint had not been answered and that he faced imminent danger. The court said it could not address those arguments in the closed case because the appeal was pending. It also noted that Singleton had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee in the earlier case.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the Clerk to file Singleton’s letter in the earlier pending case, denied fee-waiver status for an appeal from this order, and directed that the order be mailed to Singleton. The order did not decide the merits of Singleton’s claims.
The detailed version
- Singleton v. City of New York · No. 1:21-cv-06583
- Laura Swain
- Feb. 9, 2022
Background
Aaron Singleton filed a complaint without a lawyer, along with an application to proceed without paying the filing fee and a prisoner authorization form, in an earlier action under docket number 21-CV-2893 (LTS). He later filed a new complaint without a prisoner authorization form, which became this action under docket number 21-CV-6583 (LTS). The new complaint could be read to allege, among other things, that the Department of Correction had a policy or custom of recording all calls from detainees at Rikers Island, including Singleton’s calls, and providing them to prosecutors for use in criminal prosecutions.
On August 9, 2021, the court dismissed this action without prejudice as duplicative because it was substantially similar to Singleton’s pending action and involved some or all of the same defendants. The court explained that a litigant cannot pursue the same claims at the same time in two proceedings in the same federal court. The court had indicated that Singleton could seek to amend his complaint in the earlier action instead. Singleton later filed an amended complaint in that action.
Later filings and jurisdiction
Singleton appealed the dismissal. The court denied his request for more time to appeal as unnecessary, while alternatively finding good cause for any delay. It also denied his request for appointment of volunteer counsel because the district-court matter was closed.
Singleton then sent a letter responding to the court’s October 1, 2021 order. He argued that the court had not addressed the fact that his complaint in the earlier action had not been answered until the newer claim was received. He also argued that he faced imminent danger, apparently to support permission to proceed without paying the filing fee in the earlier action despite the federal law concerning three qualifying prior dismissals. On February 1, 2022, the court found in the earlier action that Singleton did not have three qualifying dismissals when he filed that complaint and was not barred from proceeding without paying the filing fee there. The court stated that it would address the merits of his claims in that action.
The court concluded that this action was closed and that Singleton’s appeal from the dismissal was pending. Under the rule that a notice of appeal transfers authority over the appealed issues to the appeals court, the district court said it lacked authority to address the arguments in Singleton’s letter in this action. The court also explained that the letter was filed nearly two months after judgment and after the appeal had been filed.
Ruling
Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the Clerk to file the letter, then docketed as ECF 9 in this closed action, in Singleton’s pending action under docket number 21-CV-2893 (LTS). The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for that appeal. The Clerk was also directed to mail Singleton a copy of the order and record service on the docket. This order did not decide the merits of Singleton’s underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.