Singleton El Bey v. Doe
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:24-cv-02207
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Singleton El Bey v. John Doe, Judge Woods moved the filing to a new civil case and closed the miscellaneous case.
Singleton El Bey, whose miscellaneous filing was administratively closed and directed to be opened as a new civil action against John Doe; any pending motions were terminated, and fee-free appeal status was denied.
What happened
In Singleton El Bey v. John Doe, Marzallah Martin-Drew Singleton El Bey filed a miscellaneous case without a lawyer. The filing included documents about conditional acceptance and a residential-eviction matter, but it improperly listed Singleton as the defendant and did not clearly identify the opposing party.
The court ruled that the filing did not fit any category for a miscellaneous case. It directed the clerk to open a new civil action listing Singleton as the plaintiff and John Doe as the defendant, terminate any pending motions, and administratively close the miscellaneous case.
Judge Woods also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status. The order did not decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Singleton El Bey v. Doe · No. 1:24-cv-02207
- Lorna Schofield
- Mar. 25, 2024
Background
Singleton filed the matter as a miscellaneous case on August 7, 2023, and was appearing without a lawyer. The filing included several documents, including multiple documents titled “Notice of Conditional Acceptance & Negative Averment of Petition Holdover/Residential Eviction.” The opinion states that Singleton improperly listed himself as the defendant rather than the plaintiff, and that it was unclear whom he intended to be the opposing party. Singleton paid the $49.00 fee required to file a miscellaneous case.
Ruling
The court determined that the nature of the filings did not fit any listed category of miscellaneous matters, so the case could not proceed on the miscellaneous docket. The clerk was directed to open the matter as a new civil action, with Singleton listed as the plaintiff and John Doe listed as the defendant. The clerk was also directed to terminate any pending motions and administratively close the miscellaneous case.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status. The order did not resolve the underlying dispute or state what claims, if any, may proceed in the new civil action.
Classification basis
This is a procedural order because it concerns the proper docket and case setup rather than the merits of the dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.