Suh v. Dept. of Justice
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-06667
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
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.
The order directly affects Andrew Suh’s purported action and Young Yil Jo’s ability to file documents and new proceedings in the court. The dismissal is without prejudice to any future civil action Andrew Suh may bring.
What happened
Suh v. Dept. of Justice was filed as a pro se action in Andrew Suh’s name. The court found that Young Yil Jo had actually filed it, despite earlier orders barring Jo from filing documents in another person’s name and from bringing new cases without permission.
The court dismissed the action without prejudice to any future civil action Andrew Suh may bring. It stated that Jo’s earlier filing restrictions remain in effect and warned that additional restrictions or sanctions could follow if Jo continues filing cases in other people’s names. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying court fees and directed the clerk to enter judgment.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ruled that the case could not proceed because it was filed by Jo in Suh’s name. The dismissal does not prevent Suh from bringing a future civil action.
The detailed version
- Suh v. Dept. of Justice · No. 1:22-cv-06667
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 5, 2022
Background
The court received a pro se action purportedly brought by Andrew Suh. The opinion states that Suh was incarcerated in the Dixon Correctional Center in Dixon, Illinois. The court found that the action was actually filed by Young Yil Jo.
The court had previously ordered that Jo could not file documents in that court in another person’s name. It had also ordered that Jo could not file a new civil action or proceeding in that court without first obtaining permission. The court stated that it had previously recognized Jo as bringing actions in Andrew Suh’s name.
Ruling
Because the court found that Jo filed this action in Suh’s name, it dismissed the action without prejudice to any civil action Andrew Suh may wish to bring in the future. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal does not itself bar Suh from bringing a future action.
The court stated that Jo’s existing filing restrictions remain in effect. It also warned that continued filings in other people’s names could lead to additional restrictions and sanctions. The court denied permission to appeal without paying court fees, certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and directed the clerk to enter judgment.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court dismissed the action based on who filed it and existing filing restrictions, without deciding the underlying legal issues of the action.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.