Arnold v. Kelly
- Philip Halpern
- 7:24-cv-00783
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Arnold v. Kelly Rodriguez, Judge Swain combined five related forms into one case and directed closure of four others without prejudice.
Johnathan Arnold and the five correction officers he identified—Kelly Rodriguez, Castro, Kastor, Clune, and Bruder—were affected by the order combining the five actions into one case and closing the four related actions without prejudice.
What happened
In Johnathan Arnold v. Kelly Rodriguez, Johnathan Arnold, who was representing himself, submitted five similar forms concerning an alleged January 3, 2024 assault by five Orange County Jail correction officers. The Clerk’s Office opened each form as a separate case.
The court found that Arnold clearly intended to sue all five officers in one lawsuit. It therefore ordered the Clerk to combine the five forms and file them as one amended complaint in the case against Kelly Rodriguez. The court also ordered the other four cases—against Castro, Kastor, Clune, and Bruder—to be closed without prejudice, meaning those claims could be litigated in the combined case.
The order did not decide whether Arnold’s excessive-force claim was valid. Judge Laura Taylor Swain also stated that no summons would issue at that time, denied fee-waiver status for an appeal, and gave Arnold two weeks to object to the consolidation order.
The detailed version
- Arnold v. Kelly · No. 7:24-cv-00783
- Philip Halpern
- Feb. 14, 2024
Background
Johnathan Arnold, proceeding without a lawyer and with permission to file without paying the filing fee in advance, brought an excessive-force claim against Orange County Jail Correction Officer Kelly Rodriguez. Arnold alleged that Rodriguez and four other Orange County Jail correction officers assaulted him on January 3, 2024, at the jail.
Arnold submitted five similarly formatted New York State forms. Each form named one officer as a defendant and was opened by the Clerk’s Office as a separate action. The other four actions were docketed as Arnold v. Castro, No. 24-CV-0785; Arnold v. Kastor, No. 24-CV-0788; Arnold v. Clune, No. 24-CV-0847; and Arnold v. Bruder, No. 24-CV-0851.
Court’s Action
Because Arnold was representing himself and clearly intended to sue all five officers, the court interpreted the five forms as one complaint. It directed the Clerk of Court to combine the five documents and file the combined document as an amended complaint in No. 24-CV-0783.
The court also directed the Clerk to file the order in the four other cases and close those cases without prejudice to litigating the claims in the combined action. The order said that, if Arnold did not object within two weeks, the court would direct entry of judgment dismissing the four other actions without prejudice. If Arnold objected and wanted to proceed with five separate actions, the court stated that it would grant his applications to proceed without paying the filing fees in advance, but he would remain responsible for the filing fees.
The court directed that Arnold not be charged the $350 filing fee for each of the four additional actions while they were being combined. It also stated that no summons would issue at that time and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, denying permission to proceed without paying the appeal filing fee.
Effect of the Order
This was a case-management and filing order, not a decision on whether Arnold was subjected to excessive force. The four related cases were ordered closed without prejudice so the claims could proceed in the combined action. Arnold was given two weeks to seek reconsideration if he objected to the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.