Debellis v. Andrew Nash and James Flynn
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-08730
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Debellis v. Nash, Judge Furman explained that dismissed arrest claims require a new lawsuit and denied fee-free appeal status.
Anthony F. Debellis, whose September 2018 arrest-related claims cannot be pursued in the closed case but may be refiled in a new lawsuit if the stated conditions are met; the order also denies him fee-free status for an appeal from this order.
What happened
Anthony F. Debellis asked the court about the next steps for pursuing claims related to his September 2018 arrest. The order noted that those claims had previously been dismissed without prejudice because deciding them could conflict with his criminal conviction.
The court explained that Debellis may be able to refile the claims if his conviction has been overturned, subject to any deadline for filing. Because the existing case is closed, the court said he would have to start a new lawsuit rather than continue this one.
Judge Jesse M. Furman also ruled that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied Debellis permission to appeal without paying the required filing fees.
The detailed version
- Debellis v. Andrew Nash and James Flynn · No. 1:19-cv-08730
- Jesse Furman
- Apr. 3, 2024
Background
Anthony F. Debellis sent the court a letter asking about the next steps for pursuing claims that he believed had been dismissed with prejudice. The court clarified that, under its March 7, 2024 order, Debellis’s claims arising from his September 2018 arrest had been dismissed without prejudice under Heck v. Humphrey. That rule can prevent a civil claim from proceeding when deciding the claim would undermine an existing criminal conviction.
What the court explained
The court stated that, if Debellis’s prior conviction has been overturned, he may be able to refile the arrest-related claims, subject to any applicable filing deadline. The order did not determine whether the conviction had been overturned. Because the case was closed, the court explained that Debellis would need to file a new lawsuit to pursue those claims.
The court also directed the Clerk of Court to mail Debellis a copy of the order. It provided information about the New York Legal Assistance Group’s Clinic for Pro Se Litigants, which offers limited assistance to people representing themselves in civil cases. The court explained that the clinic is operated by a private organization and cannot file documents for a party.
Ruling
Judge Jesse M. Furman certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. He therefore denied fee-free status for an appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). The order otherwise gave procedural guidance about pursuing the previously dismissed claims; it did not decide the merits of those claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.