Matias v. New York City
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-04990
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Matias v. New York City, Judge Swain dismissed the action without prejudice after Matias failed to amend his complaint or update his address.
Carlos Matias's action against New York City and other defendants; the court also terminated all other pending matters and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.
What happened
Carlos Matias sued New York City and other defendants while he was incarcerated at the Anna M. Kross Center on Rikers Island. The court had ordered him to file an amended complaint within 60 days and warned that failing to do so would result in dismissal.
The order was returned as undeliverable after Matias was no longer held at that facility. He did not file the amended complaint, notify the court of a new mailing address, or otherwise contact the court.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the action without prejudice, meaning the opinion did not bar a later filing. The court also terminated all other pending matters and denied Matias permission to proceed without paying fees on an appeal.
The detailed version
- Matias v. New York City · No. 1:23-cv-04990
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 11, 2023
Background
Carlos Matias filed this action while incarcerated at the Anna M. Kross Center on Rikers Island and in the custody of the New York City Department of Correction. On July 27, 2023, the court ordered him to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The order warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal.
On October 3, 2023, the court received the order back as undeliverable because Matias was no longer held at that facility. Matias had not filed an amended complaint, notified the court of a change in mailing address, or otherwise contacted the court.
Ruling
The court dismissed the action without prejudice because Matias did not comply with the order, did not update his address, and did not contact the court. The court also terminated all other pending matters and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal. The opinion did not state that an appeal was barred.
Effect
The dismissal ended this action, but the court expressly ordered that it be without prejudice. The order’s effect on any future action is not otherwise discussed in the opinion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.