Harris v. The City of New York
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:23-cv-06344
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Harris v. City of New York, Judge Broderick dismissed the case without prejudice because the pro se plaintiffs pursued claims for their brothers.
The four plaintiffs—Yusef A. Harris, Ishmael C. Harris, Gregory S. Harris, and Oral R. Sinclar—were affected because their case was dismissed without prejudice after they pursued claims on behalf of their brothers without identifying personal claims or obtaining counsel. The order also denied them permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
What happened
In Harris v. The City of New York, Yusef A. Harris, Ishmael C. Harris, Gregory S. Harris, and Oral R. Sinclar said they intended to pursue claims on behalf of their slain younger brothers. The court had repeatedly told them that people without lawyers generally cannot represent someone else in federal court.
The plaintiffs did not identify claims belonging to themselves and did not obtain a lawyer to represent claims on behalf of their brothers. The court dismissed the case without prejudice, directed the Clerk of Court to close it, and ordered that the plaintiffs receive a copy of the order.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied the plaintiffs permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
The detailed version
- Harris v. The City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-06344
- Vernon Broderick
- Mar. 12, 2024
Background
The plaintiffs filed a letter confirming that they intended to pursue claims on behalf of their slain younger brothers. The order states that all four plaintiffs were proceeding without lawyers. The court had repeatedly instructed them that a person who is not a licensed attorney may not represent another person in that person's claim. It had asked the plaintiffs either to identify claims belonging to themselves or to find a lawyer to represent claims brought on behalf of their brothers.
Reasoning
The plaintiffs did not identify any claim personal to themselves and did not retain counsel. Their March 7, 2024 letter affirmatively stated that they were asserting claims on behalf of their brothers. The court concluded that they could not pursue those claims without lawyers in federal court. The order therefore found no viable claim before the court.
Ruling
The court dismissed the case without prejudice, meaning the order did not bar a later filing. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the case and mail the order to the plaintiffs at their last known address. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied the plaintiffs permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.