Scott v. Annucci
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-06921
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Scott v. Annucci, Judge Swain granted Scott’s request to withdraw the action, closed the case, and denied fee-free appeal status.
James Scott, the court’s Clerk of Court, and the warden or superintendent responsible for Scott’s custody and prison trust-account deductions.
What happened
In Scott v. Annucci, James Scott told the court that he did not intend to file the case and had not authorized anyone to file it for him.
The court granted Scott’s request to withdraw the action because it had been opened in error. The court directed that Scott not be charged the filing fee and that any authorized deductions from his prison trust account for this case be stopped.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the case closed and all pending deadlines ended. She also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Scott v. Annucci · No. 1:23-cv-06921
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 7, 2023
Background
On September 5, 2023, the court received a letter from James Scott stating that he did not intend to file this action and had not authorized anyone to file it on his behalf.
Ruling
The court granted Scott’s request to withdraw the action, which the court described as having been opened in error. The Clerk of Court was directed not to charge Scott the $350 filing fee. The warden or superintendent responsible for Scott’s custody was directed to suspend any previously authorized monetary deduction from Scott’s prison trust account for this lawsuit.
The Clerk of Court was also directed to close the case and terminate all pending deadlines. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Scott permission to appeal without paying the required fees.
Disposition and Classification
The order granted Scott’s request to withdraw the action and directed that the case be closed. It did not decide the underlying merits of any claim, so this is a procedural order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.