Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 7, 2022

Suh v. Dept. of Justice

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:22-cv-02847
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Suh v. Department of Justice, Judge Swain dismissed the case without prejudice after finding it was filed by someone else.

Who this affects

Andrew Suh’s purported case was dismissed without prejudice, leaving open any case Suh may bring in the future. Young Yil Jo remains subject to filing restrictions and a warning of possible additional sanctions. The Department of Justice was named as the respondent, but the court did not reach the complaint’s allegations.

What happened

In Suh v. Dept. of Justice, the court received a handwritten complaint purportedly filed by Andrew Suh, who was incarcerated in Illinois. The complaint named the Department of Justice and sought damages, but it was accompanied by a notice of appeal and was mailed from California.

The court reviewed its records and found that Young Yil Jo had filed the action in Suh’s name. The court noted that Jo had previously filed actions in other people’s names without permission, including an earlier action in Suh’s name that Suh said was filed without his knowledge or consent.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the action without prejudice to any case Suh may choose to bring in the future. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal, reaffirmed restrictions barring Jo from filing new cases or documents in another person’s name without permission, and warned that further restrictions or sanctions were possible.

The detailed version

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

Case
Suh v. Dept. of Justice · No. 1:22-cv-02847
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Apr. 7, 2022

Background

The court received a one-page handwritten complaint purportedly brought by Andrew Suh. The complaint named the Department of Justice as the defendant and alleged taxpayer damage, discrimination by a jury, and injury requiring redress, while seeking damages. A document titled “Notice of Appeal” was attached. The materials were mailed from Los Angeles, California, although the complaint stated that Suh was incarcerated at Dixon Correctional Facility in Illinois.

Court’s finding about the filing

The court reviewed its records and found that Young Yil Jo had filed the action in Suh’s name. The court stated that Jo had filed hundreds of actions in his own name and in the names of other purported plaintiffs without their permission. The court also cited an earlier action filed in Suh’s name in another federal district, in which Suh informed that court that the complaint had been filed without his knowledge or consent. In addition, this court had dismissed an identical action filed by Jo in Suh’s name less than a month earlier.

Ruling

The court dismissed this action without prejudice to any civil action Andrew Suh may wish to bring in the court in the future. The court did not decide the complaint’s underlying allegations or any claim against the Department of Justice.

The court advised Jo that earlier orders remained in effect. Those orders barred Jo from filing a new civil action or proceeding in the court without first obtaining permission and barred him from filing documents in the name of another person. The court stated that it would dismiss any future civil action or proceeding filed by Jo in another person’s name, without prejudice to that person’s ability to bring a case in the future, and warned that additional restrictions and sanctions could be imposed.

The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail the order to Suh and Jo and record service on the docket.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.