Alexander v. NYPD
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-04610
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Alexander v. NYPD, Chief Judge Swain denied two motions, leaving the action closed under a filing bar while allowing Liam Alexander to file a new action.
Liam Alexander, the named plaintiff; the defendants in the closed action; and Sean Matthew Finnegan, whose filing bar remains in effect.
What happened
In Liam Alexander v. NYPD, the court said the lawsuit labeled as Alexander’s had actually been filed by Sean Matthew Finnegan. Finnegan was barred from filing new cases without first obtaining the court’s permission. After the plaintiff did not respond to an order questioning whether the bar applied, the court dismissed the action without prejudice to a future civil action brought by Liam Alexander.
After the dismissal, the court received a request for 60 more days to respond to the earlier order and a request to compel the New York City Police Department to return property and provide identification to the court. The court denied both requests because the action was already closed.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain ruled that the action remains closed and that the filing bar remains in effect. She stated that Liam Alexander may file a new civil action, but he would need to provide a declaration and documents showing that he is the person who actually filed it. The court also denied fee-free status for an appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Alexander v. NYPD · No. 1:22-cv-04610
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 30, 2022
Background
The court received a lawsuit identified as a pro se action, meaning an action filed without a lawyer, purportedly brought by Liam Alexander. The court determined that the complaint had actually been filed by Sean Matthew Finnegan. In a prior related proceeding, Finnegan had been barred from filing any new action in this court without first obtaining permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court ordered the plaintiff to explain why this action should not be dismissed under that filing bar. The order was returned as undeliverable, and the plaintiff did not respond or provide a different address. The court then dismissed the action under the bar order, expressly stating that the dismissal was without prejudice to any civil action Liam Alexander might bring in the future. Judgment was entered, and the action was closed.
Motions and ruling
After the dismissal, the court received two motions: one seeking 60 additional days to comply with the earlier order, and another seeking to compel the New York City Police Department to return property and provide the court with a copy of the plaintiff’s identification.
The court denied both motions. It explained that the action was already closed. The court also stated that Liam Alexander remains free to file a new civil action. If he does so, he must be prepared to show, through a declaration and supporting documents, that the action was actually filed by a person whose legal name is Liam Alexander and therefore is not subject to the filing bar that applies to Finnegan.
Effect of the order
The court’s conclusion states that the two motions are denied, the action remains closed, and the bar order remains in effect. The court did not decide the underlying claims against the named defendants. It also certified that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court ruled on post-dismissal motions and the filing-bar issue without reaching the merits of the claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.