McCallum v. NYC City of NY
- Laura Swain
- 1:21-cv-09162
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In McCallum v. NYC City of NY, Judge Swain dismissed the duplicate civil-rights complaint without prejudice and denied fee-free appeal status.
Douglas McCallum and the City of New York, as the defendant identified in the caption; the order also affects McCallum’s ability to appeal without paying court fees.
What happened
In McCallum v. NYC City of NY, Douglas McCallum, representing himself, alleged under a federal civil-rights law that he was falsely arrested and subjected to excessive force.
The court said McCallum had filed a substantially similar case that was already pending under docket number 22-CV-0081 (PAE). Because this lawsuit duplicated that case, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice to the pending case.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied McCallum permission to appeal without paying the required fees.
The detailed version
- McCallum v. NYC City of NY · No. 1:21-cv-09162
- Laura Swain
- Feb. 11, 2022
Background
Douglas McCallum, who was representing himself, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleged that the defendants falsely arrested him and used excessive force against him. The caption identifies NYC City of NY as the defendant.
The court had previously given McCallum permission to amend his complaint to provide additional facts supporting his claims. McCallum later filed a substantially similar complaint naming the “NYCPD,” which the court understood to mean the New York City Police Department. That filing was opened as a separate case under No. 22-CV-0081 (PAE), which was pending before Judge Paul A. Engelmayer.
Court’s Reasoning
The court concluded that the two cases raised the same claims. It stated that no useful purpose would be served by litigating this duplicate lawsuit. In a footnote, the court explained that although McCallum named the New York City Police Department in the other case, the claims ultimately were against the City of New York because the city agency could not be sued as a separate entity under the cited New York City Charter provision.
Ruling
The court dismissed McCallum’s complaint as duplicative of the case pending under No. 22-CV-0081 (PAE). The dismissal was without prejudice to that pending case. The court also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the required fees. The clerk was directed to mail McCallum 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.