Williams v. IRS Exam Department
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-02480
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Williams v. IRS Exam Department, Judge Swain dismissed the duplicate complaint without prejudice and denied appeal-related fee relief.
Michael O. Williams’s duplicate complaint was dismissed; the pending action under docket number 24-CV-2415 was not dismissed by this order.
What happened
In Williams v. IRS Exam Department, Michael O. Williams, representing himself, challenged a 2018 tax assessment and other matters. He had already filed a nearly identical case, docket number 24-CV-2415, which was still pending.
The court found that the second complaint raised the same claims as the pending case and that litigating both would serve no useful purpose. It dismissed this complaint without prejudice because it duplicated the other action.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Williams permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. Judgment was entered.
The detailed version
- Williams v. IRS Exam Department · No. 1:24-cv-02480
- Laura Swain
- Apr. 3, 2024
Background
Michael O. Williams, who was representing himself, challenged a tax assessment for 2018 and other matters. He had previously filed a nearly identical complaint in the same court asserting the same claims. That earlier action was pending under docket number 24-CV-2415.
Court’s Reasoning
The court determined that the second complaint raised the same claims as the pending action. It concluded that no useful purpose would be served by litigating this duplicate case.
Ruling
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed Williams’s complaint without prejudice as duplicative of the action pending under docket number 24-CV-2415. The dismissal left Williams able to pursue the pending action, as stated in the order.
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 permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The court directed that judgment enter.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.