Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 24, 2022

Arroyo v. John/Jane Does 1-4

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:21-cv-10823
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureSection 1983
In one sentence

In Arroyo v. John/Jane Does 1-4, Judge Swain dismissed Arroyo’s complaint without prejudice and denied fee relief and appeal filing-fee status.

Who this affects

Annibal Arroyo’s case was dismissed without prejudice. He remains responsible for the full $350 filing fee, and the court denied filing-fee status for an appeal. The unnamed defendants were not required to litigate the underlying claims in this order.

What happened

In Arroyo v. John/Jane Does 1-4, Annibal Arroyo brought claims under a federal civil-rights law based on events in 2018 and 2019 while he was a pretrial detainee. The court had directed him to file an amended complaint.

Arroyo later asked in letters to withdraw his complaint. He also asked for a refund of the filing fee and questioned withdrawals from his account. The court said he had not shown a basis for a refund or other relief.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint without prejudice under Rule 41(a), which allows a plaintiff to voluntarily withdraw a case. The court also denied filing-fee status for any appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Arroyo v. John/Jane Does 1-4 · No. 1:21-cv-10823
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Mar. 24, 2022

Background

Annibal Arroyo filed claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 concerning events in 2018 and 2019, when he was a pretrial detainee at the Anna M. Kross Center. The court had directed him to file an amended complaint within 60 days. In letters dated February 19 and 22, 2022, Arroyo asked to voluntarily withdraw the complaint.

Filing-fee requests

The complaint had been filed without prepaying the filing fee under the statute allowing qualifying litigants to proceed without prepayment. Arroyo asked for the filing fee to be refunded and appeared to question whether withdrawals from his account exceeded the required installments. The court explained that a prisoner who receives this status must still pay the full filing fee, even if the case is later voluntarily withdrawn or dismissed. The court also explained that payments toward filing fees for multiple cases may be withdrawn at the same time. Because the court did not have copies of Arroyo’s prison account statements, it could not determine whether the withdrawals complied with the statute. The court noted that Arroyo had not alleged withdrawals exceeding the $350 filing fee and had not established a basis for relief.

Ruling

Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint without prejudice under Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied filing-fee status for the purpose of an appeal. The order did not resolve the underlying § 1983 claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.