Falls v. Annucci
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-08743
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Falls v. Annucci, Judge Swain denied the duplicate petition and dismissed the action without prejudice.
Raiquan K. Falls's duplicate petition and this action were affected. The court left Falls's identical petition in the separately pending case, No. 22-CV-8055 (UA), undisturbed.
What happened
Raiquan K. Falls, representing himself, filed a petition seeking immediate release from what he described as illegal imprisonment and restraint. The case was Falls v. Annucci, No. 22-CV-8743 (LTS).\n\nThe court found that Falls had already submitted an identical petition in a separate case, No. 22-CV-8055 (UA), which was still pending. Because the claims were identical, the court said there was no useful purpose in continuing this duplicate lawsuit.\n\nJudge Laura Taylor Swain denied the petition without prejudice to the pending case and dismissed this action without prejudice. The court also declined to issue a certificate allowing an appeal and denied permission to appeal without paying fees.
The detailed version
- Falls v. Annucci · No. 1:22-cv-08743
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 18, 2022
Background
On October 11, 2022, Raiquan K. Falls filed a petition seeking “immediate release from such illegal imprisonment and restraint of his liberty.” The opinion states that Falls proceeded without a lawyer. The respondents included Acting Commissioner Anthony J. Annucci of the New York State Department of Correction and Community Supervision and other respondents.
Reason for Dismissal
The court stated that Falls had submitted an identical petition on September 19, 2022. That earlier case remained pending under docket number 22-CV-8055 (UA). Because this petition raised identical claims, the court concluded that no useful purpose would be served by litigating this duplicate lawsuit.
Ruling
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the petition without prejudice to Falls’s pending case under docket number 22-CV-8055 (UA). The court’s conclusion states that it denied the petition as duplicative and dismissed this action without prejudice.
The court further stated that the petition made no substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied, so it would not issue a certificate of appealability. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.