Allah v. Pacheco
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-01195
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Allah v. Pacheo, Judge Swain dismissed the duplicate action without prejudice to the earlier case and denied appeal fee-waiver status.
Master Baye Balah Allah, Officer Pacheo, Officer Bliech, and Lt. Harris #144. The present action was dismissed, while Allah I remained pending in the Eastern District of New York.
What happened
Master Baye Balah Allah filed this case as a self-represented plaintiff. The court found that he had filed an identical complaint in an earlier case, Allah I, which had been transferred to the Eastern District of New York and remained pending.
Because the two cases raised the same claims, the court said that continuing this case would serve no useful purpose. It dismissed this action without prejudice to Allah I.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment dismissing the action. She also found that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Allah v. Pacheco · No. 1:24-cv-01195
- Laura Swain
- Feb. 28, 2024
Background
Master Baye Balah Allah, appearing without a lawyer, filed the complaint in this action on February 12, 2024. On the same day, before filing this action, he filed an identical complaint that began an earlier case in the same court, identified in the opinion as Allah I, No. 1:24-CV-1138 (LTS). The earlier case had been transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and remained pending.
The present action names Officer Pacheo, Officer Bliech, and Lt. Harris #144 as defendants. The court stated that the present action raised the same claims as Allah I.
Ruling
The court dismissed the present action without prejudice to Allah I because litigating the duplicate action would serve no useful purpose. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment dismissing this action.
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 fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.