Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 20, 2024

Anderson v. Hochul

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:23-cv-09528
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Anderson v. Hochul, Judge Swain recognized the third amended complaint, warned against another unauthorized amendment, and denied Plaintiff permission to appeal without prepaying fees.

Who this affects

The order directly affects Plaintiff Khaliq Alim Anderson by designating his third amended complaint as operative, restricting any further amendment without permission, and denying permission to appeal without prepaying filing fees. It also directs how the Clerk of Court must handle any unauthorized fourth amended complaint.

What happened

In Anderson v. Hochul, the court stated that Khalıq Alim Anderson’s third amended complaint was the operative pleading after he filed three amended complaints following an earlier dismissal and permission to replead.

The court warned that any fourth amended complaint filed without permission would be removed from the record. It also found that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Anderson permission to appeal without prepaying filing fees.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain issued the order on February 20, 2024. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or explain the basis for the earlier dismissal.

The detailed version

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

Case
Anderson v. Hochul · No. 1:23-cv-09528
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Feb. 20, 2024

Background

The court said that it had dismissed the action by order dated January 8, 2024, while allowing Plaintiff 30 days to file a new complaint. Since that order, Plaintiff filed three amended complaints. The third amended complaint was filed on February 15, 2024, and entered on the docket on February 20, 2024.

Rulings

The court identified the third amended complaint as the operative pleading, meaning the version controlling the action going forward. The court warned that if Plaintiff filed a fourth amended complaint without the court’s permission, the Clerk of Court would be directed to strike it from the record.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Plaintiff permission to appeal without prepaying filing fees.

What the Opinion Does Not Decide

The order does not describe the claims in the complaint or decide their merits. It also does not explain the basis for the January 8 dismissal.

Judge

Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed and entered the order on February 20, 2024.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.