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

Smalls v. 24th Precinct

Judge
Gregory Woods
Docket
1:22-cv-03205
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
5
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Aaron D. Smalls v. City of New York, Judge Woods held the court lacked jurisdiction over post-dismissal filings and directed the Clerk to strike the proposed complaint.

Who this affects

Aaron D. Smalls’s request for counsel and proposed amended complaint were not considered because the court held that the case had already been voluntarily dismissed and that it lacked jurisdiction. The defendants named in the caption were City of New York, Police Officer Nash, and Police Officer Venteurer.

What happened

Aaron D. Smalls asked the court on July 6, 2022 to appoint counsel and accept a proposed amended complaint. The opinion states that Smalls had voluntarily dismissed the case on May 13, 2022, and that the case was closed.

The court explained that the voluntary dismissal took effect when it was filed, so the court no longer had jurisdiction to consider the case. As a result, it could not consider Smalls’s later request or proposed amended complaint.

Judge Woods ordered the Clerk of Court to strike the proposed amended complaint and send Smalls a copy of the order by certified mail. The court did not rule on the substance of the claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Smalls v. 24th Precinct · No. 1:22-cv-03205
Judge
Gregory Woods
Date
July 7, 2022

Background

Aaron D. Smalls filed a July 6, 2022 request for counsel and a proposed amended complaint. The court stated that Smalls had voluntarily dismissed the case on May 13, 2022 under Rule 41(a)(1)(A), and that the case had been closed.

Jurisdiction

The court held that a voluntary dismissal under the cited rule became effective when it was filed with the Clerk. Because the dismissal had already been filed, the court stated that it had lost jurisdiction—the legal power to consider the case—and therefore lacked jurisdiction to consider Smalls’s July 6 filings.

Disposition

The court did not decide the underlying claims or the request for counsel. It directed the Clerk of Court to strike Smalls’s July 6 proposed amended complaint and to send Smalls a copy of the order by certified mail.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-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.