Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 6, 2022

Suh v. Dept. of Justice

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:22-cv-04790
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Suh v. Dept. of Justice, Judge Swain dismissed the action without prejudice after finding Young Yil Jo filed it in Andrew Suh’s name.

Who this affects

Andrew Suh’s purported action was dismissed without prejudice, while Young Yil Jo remains subject to filing restrictions and was denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.

What happened

In Suh v. Dept. of Justice, the court said the action appeared to have been filed by Young Yil Jo, even though it was brought in Andrew Suh’s name. The court noted that Jo was subject to earlier filing restrictions in this court.

The court dismissed the action without prejudice to any civil action Andrew Suh might bring in the future. It also stated that Jo remains barred from filing a new civil action or proceeding in this court without permission and from filing documents in another person’s name.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The opinion does not address the underlying claims.

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-04790
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
July 6, 2022

Background

The court received a purportedly self-represented action brought in Andrew Suh’s name. The opinion states that Suh was incarcerated in the Dixon Correctional Center in Illinois, but that the action was actually filed by Young Yil Jo. The court had previously ordered, in a prior related proceeding, No. 1:14-CV-7793 (S.D.N.Y.), that Jo could not file documents in this court in another person’s name and could not file a new civil action or proceeding without first obtaining the court’s permission.

The opinion also states that the court had previously recognized Jo as having brought other actions in Suh’s name. It does not describe the underlying claims in this action.

Ruling

The court dismissed this action without prejudice to any civil action Andrew Suh might wish to bring in the future. The dismissal was based on the court’s finding that Jo filed the action in Suh’s name, rather than on a decision about the underlying legal claims.

The court stated that Jo’s earlier filing injunctions remain in effect. Jo remains enjoined from filing any new civil action or proceeding in this court without first obtaining permission, and remains barred from filing any document in this court in another person’s name. The court warned that additional restrictions or sanctions could be imposed if Jo continued this conduct.

Appeal and Service

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The clerk was directed to mail the order to Jo and to the address for Suh 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.