Sowell v. Annucci
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-06538
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Sowell v. Annucci, Judge Swain dismissed the action after Sowell failed to file the required amended complaint.
Randy Sowell's federal civil-rights action against NYSDOCCS Anthony J. Annucci and the other defendants was dismissed; any related state-law claims were not heard in federal court.
What happened
In Sowell v. Annucci, Randy Sowell, who was representing himself, alleged that his multiple detentions under parole warrants were unlawful while he was detained at the Vernon C. Bain Center.
The court had previously dismissed the action for failing to state a claim but allowed Sowell to file a second amended complaint addressing two specific claims. After reopening the case and giving him additional time, the court still did not receive that complaint.
Judge Swain dismissed the action for the reasons stated in the earlier order and declined to decide any state-law claims. She also denied permission to appeal without paying court fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Sowell v. Annucci · No. 1:22-cv-06538
- Laura Swain
- Apr. 15, 2024
Background
Randy Sowell filed this case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against state actors for violations of federal rights. He alleged that his multiple detentions pursuant to parole warrants were unlawful. The opinion states that Sowell was detained at the Vernon C. Bain Center and represented himself.
Procedural history
On June 26, 2023, the court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim. It gave Sowell 60 days to file a second amended complaint addressing two specific claims. The court warned that failing to file within that period would result in judgment dismissing the action for the reasons stated in the June 26 order. Sowell did not file the required complaint, and judgment was entered on September 25, 2023.
Sowell later asserted that staff members of the New York City Department of Correction had confiscated his legal papers, preventing him from responding. The court treated his letter as a motion for reconsideration, granted that motion, vacated the September 25 civil judgment, reopened the case, and gave him another 30 days to file the second amended complaint.
Sowell then stated that he had been extradited to New Jersey from Rikers Island and had mailed his second amended complaint from Rikers Island. Because the court had not received the complaint, it gave him another 30 days on January 3, 2024, to file a complaint complying with the June 26 order. He did not file one.
Ruling
The court dismissed the action for the reasons set forth in the June 26, 2023 order. The opinion does not repeat those reasons beyond identifying the earlier dismissal as based on failure to state a claim. The court also declined, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c), to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—over any state-law claims. All other pending matters were terminated.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the required court fees. Judge Swain signed the order on April 15, 2024.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.