King v. King
- Lewis Liman
- 1:22-cv-02479
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In King v. King, Judge Swain granted Sharif King’s request to supplement his complaint with a letter.
Sharif King’s complaint was supplemented with his June 23, 2022 letter, and Sharod King remains the defendant in the action. The order also affects any appeal from this order by denying permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
Sharif King sued his brother, Sharod King, claiming breach of contract and relying on diversity jurisdiction. The court had previously ordered him to provide facts about the parties’ citizenship and the proper venue.
After appealing that order, Sharif King asked to add facts from a June 23, 2022 letter to his complaint. The appeals court later dismissed his appeal and returned the case to the district court.
The district court granted the request and directed the Clerk to docket the letter as the “Letter Supplementing the Complaint.” Judge Laura Taylor Swain also ruled that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fees.
The detailed version
- King v. King · No. 1:22-cv-02479
- Lewis Liman
- Mar. 20, 2023
Background
Sharif King, representing himself and incarcerated at Five Points Correctional Facility, sued Sharod King, his brother. The complaint asserts a breach-of-contract claim and relies on the court’s jurisdiction over disputes between citizens of different states. In a May 19, 2022 order, the court gave Sharif King permission to file an amended complaint providing facts about the parties’ citizenship and explaining why the Southern District of New York was the proper venue.
Sharif King appealed that May 19 order on June 2, 2022. The Clerk’s Office transferred the action to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on June 8, 2022. While the case was in the appeals court, Sharif King sent a June 23, 2022 letter asking the district court to add the facts in the letter to his complaint. The district court could not rule on that request while the appeal was pending because the notice of appeal removed the case from the district court’s control. On February 10, 2023, the appeals court dismissed the appeal and returned jurisdiction to the district court.
Ruling
The court granted Sharif King’s request to supplement his complaint with the June 23, 2022 letter. It directed the Clerk of Court to docket the submission as the “Letter Supplementing the Complaint.”
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fees for that appeal. The order did not decide the underlying breach-of-contract claim or the parties’ citizenship.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.