Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 12, 2023

Watkins v. New York City

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:23-cv-04890
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Watkins v. New York City, Judge Swain dismissed the complaint without prejudice after Watkins failed to submit an amended complaint or update his address.

Who this affects

Allen T. Watkins, whose complaint was dismissed without prejudice; New York City and the New York City Department of Correction were the named defendants.

What happened

In Watkins v. New York City, the court had previously ordered Allen T. Watkins to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The order was returned after Watkins was discharged from the facility where he had been detained.

Watkins did not file the amended complaint, notify the court of a new mailing address, or otherwise contact the court. The opinion does not describe the claims in his original complaint.

Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint without prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. She also denied Watkins permission to appeal without paying the filing fee, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Watkins v. New York City · No. 1:23-cv-04890
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Oct. 12, 2023

Background

Allen T. Watkins filed this action without paying the filing fee under the federal statute allowing qualifying litigants to proceed without prepaying that fee. The opinion states that Watkins was detained at the Anna M. Kross Center on Rikers Island when he filed the action. It also states that public records showed he was no longer in the custody of the New York City Department of Correction.

On July 27, 2023, the court ordered Watkins to file an amended complaint within 60 days. On September 5, 2023, that order was returned to the court with a notation that Watkins had been discharged from the facility. Watkins did not comply with the order, notify the court of a change in mailing address, or initiate further contact with the court.

Ruling

The court dismissed Watkins’s complaint without prejudice because he failed to comply with the order and failed to keep the court informed of his address. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal itself does not bar a later filing. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in the action.

Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. As a result, the court denied Watkins permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal. The opinion does not address the merits of Watkins’s underlying claims.

Classification

This is a procedural order because the court dismissed the action for failure to comply with a court order and maintain contact information, without deciding the underlying claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.