Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 30, 2023

Evans v. Macheskee

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:23-cv-00637
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In James Earl Evans Sr. v. Lyndsay Santa, Judge Swain ordered Evans to explain why his case should not be dismissed without prejudice as duplicative.

Who this affects

James Earl Evans Sr. and the defendants in the present action are affected. Evans must file a declaration within 30 days or the court stated that it will dismiss the action without prejudice as duplicative.

What happened

James Earl Evans Sr., who is incarcerated and without a lawyer, sued Lyndsay Santa and others over alleged constitutional-rights violations involving Orange County social-services employees and his children’s custody. The court noted that Evans had filed another case involving similar allegations.

The court said this case may duplicate the earlier related action, identified by docket number 1:23-CV-0626 (LTS). It did not dismiss this case at this stage.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered Evans to submit a declaration within 30 days explaining why the case should not be dismissed without prejudice as duplicative. The court stated that it will dismiss the case without prejudice if he does not respond or does not show sufficient reason. It also denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Evans v. Macheskee · No. 1:23-cv-00637
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Jan. 30, 2023

Background

James Earl Evans Sr., who the opinion says is incarcerated at Elmira Correctional Facility and is proceeding without a lawyer, brought this federal action against Lyndsay Santa and others. He alleged that his federal constitutional rights were violated between January 5, 2022, and November 5, 2022, through alleged actions by employees of the Orange County Department of Social Services concerning the current and possible future custody of his children, including statements allegedly made in state court.

The court also received another complaint from Evans on January 23, 2023. That complaint involved similar allegations arising from events allegedly occurring on or about February 12, 2022, and began an earlier related action identified by docket number 1:23-CV-0626 (LTS).

Order to Show Cause

The court determined that the present action appeared potentially duplicative of the earlier related action. Because Evans was proceeding without a lawyer, the court gave him an opportunity to explain the situation before dismissing the case.

The court ordered Evans to file a declaration within 30 days explaining why the present action should not be dismissed without prejudice as duplicative. “Without prejudice” means the stated dismissal would not bar refiling the action. The court did not dismiss the case in this order. It stated that it would dismiss the case without prejudice if Evans failed to file the declaration on time or failed to show why dismissal should not occur.

Appeal-Filing-Fee Ruling

The court 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 paying the filing fee.

Disposition

The court ordered Evans to show cause by declaration within 30 days why the action should not be dismissed without prejudice as duplicative. The order did not itself dismiss the action. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.