Harris v. Vassallo
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-04440
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Harris v. Vassallo, Judge Swain dismissed the complaint after Harris failed to file an ordered amended complaint and denied filing-fee relief for an appeal.
Laquan Devota Harris's complaint was dismissed after he failed to file the required amended complaint. Harris was also denied permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees for an appeal, and the court's warning about possible future filing restrictions remained in effect.
What happened
In Harris v. Vassallo, the court had ordered Harris to file an amended complaint within 60 days and warned that failing to do so would lead to dismissal. Harris did not file the amended complaint.
The court dismissed the complaint under the statutes governing cases filed without prepaying filing fees. The court also warned that further duplicative, malicious, or frivolous lawsuits could lead to an order requiring Harris to explain why a filing ban should not be imposed.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment and ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, so Harris could not proceed without prepaying filing fees for the appeal.
The detailed version
- Harris v. Vassallo · No. 1:23-cv-04440
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 26, 2023
Background
The court had previously directed Harris to file an amended complaint within 60 days. That order stated that failing to comply would result in dismissal. Harris did not file an amended complaint.
The complaint had been filed without prepaying filing fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The opinion also states that Harris had filed several pro se cases in the Southern District of New York and had previously been warned that misuse of the privilege to proceed without prepaying filing fees could lead to restrictions on filing new actions without prior permission.
Ruling
The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii). The order does not provide a merits ruling on the underlying claims. It states that the earlier warning remains in effect and that further duplicative, malicious, or frivolous litigation could result in an order requiring Harris to show why a filing injunction should not be imposed.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Harris permission to proceed without prepaying filing fees for an appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.