Smith v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-04994
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 15
In Smith v. J.P. Morgan, Judge Swain left the case closed unless Smith files an amended complaint within 30 days after an unclear request to reopen.
Arthur Edward Smith and the two named bank defendants. The case remains closed unless Smith timely files a compliant amended complaint; the order also denies Smith permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
What happened
Smith v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. began when Arthur Edward Smith, representing himself, sued J.P. Morgan Chase Bank N.A. and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. He alleged that a ten-day hold on his paycheck resulted from racial discrimination. An earlier order found that his allegations did not adequately state a federal discrimination claim but allowed him to amend.
Smith then voluntarily dismissed the case, and the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice on October 3, 2022. He later filed a motion seeking to repudiate or strike the voluntary dismissal and referred to a Second Circuit matter, but the court could not determine exactly what relief he wanted.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered that, if Smith wants to reopen the case, he must file an amended complaint within 30 days that follows the earlier instructions; otherwise, the case will remain closed. The court also denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Smith v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. · No. 1:22-cv-04994
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 13, 2023
Background
Arthur Edward Smith filed the action without a lawyer against J.P. Morgan Chase Bank N.A. and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. He had alleged under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 that a Chase employee's decision to place a ten-day hold on his deposited paycheck was based on racial discrimination. In an earlier order, the court concluded that Smith had not provided facts identifying his race or showing that race was the reason the bank took the challenged action. The court allowed him 60 days to file an amended complaint that supplied more facts.
Smith later moved to voluntarily dismiss the action. On October 3, 2022, the court granted that motion and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. On October 11, 2022, Smith filed a motion for “repudiation/and or striking of Voluntary Dismissal notice.” He stated that he had sought jurisdiction in the Second Circuit and referred to Second Circuit docket number 22-2093. The court said the documents from that proceeding were unavailable, although Smith may have filed a request asking the Second Circuit to order the district court to act. The district-court docket showed no notice of appeal.
January 13, 2023 Order
The court stated that it was unclear whether Smith wanted to reopen the case or sought some other relief. It did not describe a separate ruling granting or denying the repudiation motion. Instead, it provided a conditional procedure: if Smith seeks to reopen the matter, he must file an amended complaint within 30 days of the order and comply with the August 22, 2022 order to amend. If he does so, the court will reopen the case and the Clerk's Office will process it under the applicable procedures. If he does not, the matter will remain closed.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The order did not decide whether Smith ultimately could prove his discrimination or state-law claims.
Read the full 15-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.