Vaughn v. Ryan Health Care Center
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-01637
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Vaughn v. Ryan Health Care, Judge Swain granted Vaughn’s request to withdraw the complaint and voluntarily dismissed the action.
Nat Vaughn’s action against Ryan Health Care, Martin A. Aviles OD, and Jane Doe, Medical Technician was voluntarily dismissed and the case was closed. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
In Vaughn v. Ryan Health Care, the court had previously dismissed Nat Vaughn’s complaint for lack of authority to hear the case but allowed him to amend it to provide facts supporting diversity jurisdiction.
Vaughn later told the court that he wanted to withdraw his complaint. The court granted that request and voluntarily dismissed the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), closing the case.
Judge Swain also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Vaughn permission to appeal without paying court fees. 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. 28, 2022
Background
Nat Vaughn sued Ryan Health Care, Martin A. Aviles OD, and Jane Doe, Medical Technician. On March 7, 2022, the court dismissed the complaint because it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court determined that it did not have authority to hear the case. The court gave Vaughn permission to amend the complaint to allege facts supporting diversity jurisdiction.
On March 28, 2022, the court received Vaughn’s letter stating that he wanted to withdraw the complaint.
Ruling
The court granted Vaughn’s request to withdraw the action and voluntarily dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). The order closed the case. Because the court voluntarily dismissed the action, it did not reach the underlying claims.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fees.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.