Granados v. NYS DOCCS
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-09222
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Judge Swain dismissed Granados v. NYS DOCCS without prejudice because it duplicated Granados’s pending visitation-rights case.
Delia Granados, whose duplicative complaint was dismissed, while her related case under docket number 22-CV-8804 remained pending.
What happened
In Granados v. NYS DOCCS, Delia Granados, who was representing herself, alleged that defendants denied her visitation with her boyfriend at Woodbourne Correctional Facility because of an incident at Otisville Correctional Facility. She sought restoration of her visiting privileges and money damages.
The court said Granados had already filed a similar case, docket number 22-CV-8804, involving the same basic claims and requested relief. The court stated that she could seek to change the parties or claims in that pending case by filing an amended complaint, if the rules allowed it.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed this complaint without prejudice as duplicative of docket number 22-CV-8804. The court also terminated all other pending matters, denied fee-free appeal status because it certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and directed the Clerk to enter judgment.
The detailed version
- Granados v. NYS DOCCS · No. 1:22-cv-09222
- Laura Swain
- Nov. 2, 2022
Background
Delia Granados, proceeding without a lawyer, alleged that the defendants discriminated against her by denying her visitation rights with her boyfriend at Woodbourne Correctional Facility because of an incident at Otisville Correctional Facility. She requested reinstatement of her visiting privileges and money damages.
The case was initially filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and was transferred to the Southern District of New York on October 20, 2022. The opinion states that Granados had already filed a similar complaint in this court against officials of the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. That earlier case remained pending under docket number 22-CV-8804 and sought the same general relief.
Reason for Dismissal
The court concluded that the current complaint raised essentially the same claims as the pending case. It therefore found that litigating both actions would serve no useful purpose and dismissed this complaint as duplicative. The dismissal was without prejudice to Granados’s pending case under docket number 22-CV-8804.
The court noted that the current complaint named Letitia James, Anthony Annucci, and David Howard, who were not listed as defendants in the pending case. It stated that Granados could seek to change the parties or claims in the pending action by filing an amended complaint, to the extent permitted by Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Disposition
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint without prejudice as duplicative of the case under docket number 22-CV-8804. The court terminated all other pending matters in this case and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Granados fee-free appeal status, commonly called in forma pauperis status, for purposes of an appeal. The opinion did not decide whether the alleged denial of visitation or discrimination occurred.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.