Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 9, 2022

Zawadzki v. Dept. of Justice

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:22-cv-04783
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Zawadzki v. Dept. of Justice, Judge Swain dismissed the action without prejudice because Young Yil Jo filed it in Zawadzki’s name.

Who this affects

Young Yil Jo, whose filing restrictions remained in effect, and Kryst Zawadzki, whose purported action was dismissed without prejudice.

What happened

In Zawadzki v. Dept. of Justice, the court received an action purportedly brought by Kryst Zawadzki. Court records showed that Young Yil Jo had actually filed it, and that Jo had previously filed multiple lawsuits using Zawadzki’s name.

The court noted that earlier orders barred Jo from filing documents in another person’s name and from starting a new civil case in the court without permission. Those filing restrictions remained in effect.

Judge Swain dismissed the action without prejudice to any case Zawadzki might bring in the future. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying court fees, 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
Zawadzki v. Dept. of Justice · No. 1:22-cv-04783
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
June 9, 2022

Background

The court received this pro se action—an action filed without a lawyer—purportedly brought by Kryst Zawadzki. The court stated that its records showed the action was actually filed by Young Yil Jo. The opinion referenced earlier proceedings in which the court noted that Jo had filed multiple lawsuits in Zawadzki’s name.

The opinion also stated that earlier orders had barred Jo from filing any document in the court in another person’s name and from filing a new civil action or proceeding in the court without first obtaining permission.

Ruling

Because the court found that Jo filed the action, it dismissed the action without prejudice to any civil action that Kryst Zawadzki might bring in the future. The court stated that it would continue dismissing actions Jo filed in another person’s name on that same basis. It also warned that additional restrictions and sanctions could be imposed if Jo continued that conduct.

The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fees. The court directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Jo and to the address for Zawadzki listed on the docket.

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.