Vaughn v. Ryan Health Care Center
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-01637
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Vaughn v. Ryan Health Care, Judge Swain granted Vaughn an extension to file an amended complaint after an earlier jurisdictional dismissal.
Nat Vaughn, who was given 30 days to file an amended complaint; the defendants remained subject to the pending action unless the complaint was later dismissed.
What happened
In Vaughn v. Ryan Health Care, Nat Vaughn, representing himself, asked for more time to file an amended complaint. The court had previously dismissed his complaint because it did not show subject-matter jurisdiction, while allowing him 30 days to provide facts supporting diversity jurisdiction.
The court granted Vaughn’s request and directed him to file the amended complaint within 30 days of the March 17, 2022, order. The court warned that if he did not meet that deadline and could not show a good reason, it would enter judgment dismissing the complaint for the reasons given in the earlier order.
Judge Swain also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Vaughn v. Ryan Health Care Center · No. 1:22-cv-01637
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 17, 2022
Background
Nat Vaughn brought the action without a lawyer. In an order dated March 7, 2022, the court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court concluded that the complaint did not establish a legal basis for the federal court to hear the case. The court gave Vaughn 30 days to file an amended complaint alleging facts showing diversity jurisdiction.
On March 16, 2022, Vaughn filed a letter asking for an extension of time. He also asked for clarification about diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction. The court referred him to the New York Legal Assistance Group’s Legal Clinic for Pro Se Litigants, which assists people representing themselves in civil lawsuits in the court.
Ruling
The court granted Vaughn’s request for an extension of time to file an amended complaint. It directed him to file the amended complaint within 30 days of the March 17, 2022, order. The court stated that if Vaughn failed to comply and could not show good cause for the failure, it would enter judgment dismissing the complaint for the reasons stated in the March 7 order.
The court also 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 appeal without paying filing fees. The order did not resolve the merits of Vaughn’s claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.