Lahood v. Oprihory
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-05255
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lahood v. Oprihory, Judge Swain dismissed the New Jersey claims as duplicative and the unclear Bronx-assault claim without prejudice.
George Lahood’s claims against Francene Oprihory and any unclear claim concerning an alleged assault at a Bronx shelter were dismissed without prejudice. The court also denied fee-free status for an appeal.
What happened
In Lahood v. Oprihory, George Lahood, representing himself, sued Francene Oprihory over alleged rights violations in Lyndhurst, New Jersey. He also mentioned being assaulted at a Bronx shelter but did not provide details or identify any alleged attackers.
The court had transferred Lahood’s earlier, substantially similar New Jersey lawsuit against Oprihory to a federal court in New Jersey. Because this case raised the same claims, the court dismissed the claims against Oprihory as duplicative. It also dismissed any potential Bronx-assault claim because Lahood had not identified defendants or clearly stated that he was bringing such a claim.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the claims against Oprihory without prejudice to the litigation in the earlier related case and dismissed any Bronx-assault claim without prejudice to a new civil action. The court also denied fee-free appeal status, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Lahood v. Oprihory · No. 1:22-cv-05255
- Laura Swain
- June 28, 2022
Background
George Lahood brought this action without a lawyer against Francene Oprihory. The opinion states that Lahood resides in Bronx County, New York, and that Oprihory is a New Jersey resident. Lahood alleged that Oprihory violated his rights in Lyndhurst, New Jersey. He also stated that he was assaulted while housed in a Bronx County shelter, but he provided no details about the assault and did not name anyone who allegedly assaulted him.
The court had previously allowed Lahood to proceed without paying the filing fee. The opinion also states that Lahood had submitted a substantially similar complaint against Oprihory in an earlier related proceeding, which the court transferred to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey because it involved a New Jersey resident and events occurring in New Jersey.
Court’s analysis
The court determined that the New Jersey claims in this case were the same claims raised in the earlier related proceeding. Because the earlier case had already been transferred to the District of New Jersey, the court found that transferring this duplicate lawsuit would serve no useful purpose. It therefore dismissed the claims against Oprihory without prejudice to the litigation in the earlier related proceeding.
As to the alleged Bronx assault, the court found that Lahood had not identified defendants associated with the assault or otherwise indicated that he intended to pursue a claim based on it. The court dismissed any claim he was attempting to raise concerning the assault, without prejudice to a new civil action regarding that alleged assault.
Disposition
The court dismissed Lahood’s claims against Oprihory without prejudice as duplicative of the claims in the earlier related proceeding. It also dismissed any Bronx-assault claim without prejudice to a new civil action. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.