Zawadzki v. Dept. of Justice
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-06663
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Zawadzki v. Dept. of Justice, Judge Swain dismissed the action without prejudice because Young Yil Jo filed it in Zawadzki’s name.
The action purportedly brought by Kryst Zawadzki was dismissed without prejudice. Young Yil Jo remains subject to restrictions barring him from filing documents in another person’s name or starting a new action in the court without permission.
What happened
In Zawadzki v. Dept. of Justice, the court received an action purportedly brought by Kryst Zawadzki without a lawyer. Court records showed that Young Yil Jo had actually filed it.
The court noted that Jo had previously been barred from filing documents in another person’s name and from starting new cases without the court’s permission. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the action without prejudice to any case Zawadzki might bring in the future. The court also kept Jo’s filing restrictions in effect and denied him permission to appeal without paying court fees.
The detailed version
- Zawadzki v. Dept. of Justice · No. 1:22-cv-06663
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 22, 2022
Background
The court received the action on August 4, 2022. Although the case was purportedly brought by Kryst Zawadzki, court records showed that Young Yil Jo had filed it. The court cited earlier related proceedings stating that Jo had filed multiple lawsuits in Zawadzki’s name.
Prior filing restrictions
The court had previously barred Jo from filing any document in the court in another person’s name. It had also barred him from filing any new civil action or proceeding in that court without first obtaining the court’s permission.
Ruling
Because the court found that Jo had filed this action, it dismissed the action without prejudice to any civil action Zawadzki might wish to bring in the future. The court stated that Jo’s prior filing restrictions remained in effect and warned that continued filings in other people’s names could lead to additional restrictions and sanctions.
The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying court fees. The opinion does not address the merits of any underlying claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.