Alexander v. NYPD
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-04610
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Alexander v. NYPD, Chief Judge Swain dismissed the action without prejudice under a filing bar and denied fee-free appeal status.
The order affects the action presented in Liam Alexander’s name, the court-identified filer Sean Matthew Finnegan, and the named defendants. It dismissed this action without prejudice to a future civil action Liam Alexander may bring, while leaving the filing bar against Finnegan in effect.
What happened
Alexander v. NYPD was presented as a case brought by Liam Alexander, but the court determined that Sean Matthew Finnegan had actually filed it. The court cited Finnegan’s history of frivolous and vexatious lawsuits and a prior order restricting his ability to file new cases without first obtaining permission.
The court ordered Alexander to provide evidence that he was the person who filed the case and to explain why the filing restriction should not apply. The order was returned as undeliverable, and no response or new address was provided.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the action without prejudice to any future civil action Liam Alexander may bring. The court also denied status to appeal without paying filing fees and directed the clerk to enter judgment.
The detailed version
- Alexander v. NYPD · No. 1:22-cv-04610
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 24, 2022
Background
The complaint was presented as a pro se action by Liam Alexander against NYPD, DOC, Father Smith, and Unknown Unknown. The court determined that the complaint had actually been filed by Sean Matthew Finnegan. The opinion states that the court reached this conclusion because the address listed for Alexander matched an address Finnegan had used in prior cases, Alexander had recently filed a case in another federal district involving facts virtually identical to facts in one of Finnegan’s earlier cases, and Finnegan had previously filed cases under alternate names.
The court also noted that, in a prior related proceeding, Finnegan had been barred from filing any new action without paying the filing fee unless he first obtained permission from the court. The July 18, 2022 order required the plaintiff to submit a declaration and documentary evidence showing that the action had actually been filed by someone whose legal name was Liam Alexander. The order warned that failure to respond would result in dismissal under the filing bar, without prejudice to any civil action Liam Alexander might bring in the future.
Failure to Respond
The July 18 order was returned on August 2, 2022, marked “Return to Sender Attempted – Not Known Unable to Forward.” The plaintiff did not respond and did not provide another address. The court therefore applied the filing bar and dismissed the action.
Ruling and Disposition
The court dismissed the action without prejudice to any civil action Liam Alexander may wish to bring in the future. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal itself does not bar such a future action. The court also advised Finnegan that the filing bar remained in effect.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied status to appeal without paying filing fees. The clerk was directed to enter judgment. The order did not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.