Palmer v. City of New York
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-05333
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Palmer v. City of New York, Judge Swain dismissed Palmer’s complaint after he failed to amend it and denied fee-free appeal status.
Brian Shabazz Palmer, the City of New York, and the New York City Department of Corrections; Palmer was also denied permission to appeal without prepaying the appellate filing fee.
What happened
In Palmer v. City of New York, Brian Shabazz Palmer sued the City of New York and the New York City Department of Corrections. The court had ordered him to file an amended complaint within 60 days and warned that failing to do so could lead to dismissal.
Palmer did not file an amended complaint. The court dismissed the complaint for failing to state a claim that could support relief under the law governing complaints filed without paying court fees. The opinion also notes that an earlier related case involving the same defendants and claims had been dismissed as duplicative.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. She also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Palmer permission to appeal without paying court fees.
The detailed version
- Palmer v. City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-05333
- Laura Swain
- Nov. 4, 2022
Background
Brian Shabazz Palmer brought this case against the City of New York and the New York City Department of Corrections. The complaint was filed without paying the court-filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a status commonly called proceeding without prepaying fees.
The court had previously ordered Palmer to file an amended complaint within 60 days. That order warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal. Palmer did not file an amended complaint.
The opinion also states that the court had received an earlier complaint from Palmer naming the same defendants and asserting the same claims. In a prior related proceeding, the court dismissed that case as duplicative.
Ruling
The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which requires screening of certain complaints filed without prepaying fees. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.
The court separately certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without prepaying the appellate filing fee. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.