Jones v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-02104
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Jones v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, Judge Swain denied Jones’s early discovery and subpoena request without prejudice and denied fee-free appeal status.
Tyrone C. Jones was directly affected: his request for early discovery and a subpoena was denied without prejudice, he was directed to file an amended complaint, and he was denied permission to appeal without paying court fees. The defendants were not required to participate in discovery by this order.
What happened
Tyrone C. Jones, who is incarcerated in Florida and represented himself, asked to question the defendants and witnesses and to subpoena an attorney on Staten Island. The request was made while the case was still at its beginning, before discovery had started.
The court denied the discovery and subpoena motion without prejudice, meaning the ruling did not bar a later request. The court also directed Jones to file an amended complaint under its earlier order. If he did not do so without showing a good reason, the court said it would treat his original complaint as the operative pleading and review whether it was legally sufficient.
Judge Swain also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Jones permission to appeal without paying court fees. This order did not decide whether Jones’s complaint ultimately states a valid claim.
The detailed version
- Jones v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company · No. 1:23-cv-02104
- Laura Swain
- June 6, 2023
Background
Tyrone C. Jones, who was incarcerated in Florida, filed the complaint without a lawyer. The court had granted him permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, a status commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis. The court later granted his motion to amend the complaint and denied his motion for a protective order.
Jones then asked to depose the defendants and witnesses and to subpoena an attorney on Staten Island. The court explained that, generally, discovery does not begin until defendants have been served and have filed a responsive pleading. The court also noted that it usually becomes involved in discovery only when the parties cannot resolve a discovery dispute themselves.
Ruling
Because the case was still in its initial stage and had not reached discovery, the court found Jones’s motion premature. It denied Plaintiff’s motion for discovery and a subpoena (ECF 13) without prejudice. The order therefore did not prevent Jones from making a later request, although the opinion does not specify what conditions would govern any later motion.
The court directed Jones to file an amended complaint in accordance with the May 24, 2023 order. If he failed to comply within the allowed time and could not show good cause for the failure, the court said it would treat the original complaint as the operative pleading, review it for legal sufficiency, and proceed under the Clerk’s Office procedures. The court did not decide the sufficiency or merits of Jones’s claims in this order.
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 and denied in forma pauperis status for the purpose of an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.