Moody v. United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-03369
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Moody v. United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Judge Swain dismissed this duplicate action without prejudice because an identical case was pending.
Aura Moody’s duplicate lawsuit was dismissed, while her identical action under docket number 24-CV-3320 (RA) remained pending. The defendants were not subject to a merits ruling in this order.
What happened
In Moody v. United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Aura Moody, representing herself, alleged that the defendants discriminated against her under various federal employment-discrimination laws.
The court said an identical complaint had already been opened in another case, docket number 24-CV-3320 (RA), which was pending before Judge Ronnie Abrams. The court believed Moody had submitted only one complaint and that this action had been opened by mistake.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed this action without prejudice to Moody’s pending case. The court also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the required filing costs.
The detailed version
- Moody v. United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission · No. 1:24-cv-03369
- Laura Swain
- May 8, 2024
Background
Aura Moody, appearing without a lawyer, sued the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and four individual defendants. She alleged discrimination under various federal employment-discrimination statutes.
The court stated that Moody had recently filed an identical complaint in a separate action, No. 24-CV-3320 (RA), which was pending before Judge Ronnie Abrams. The court believed Moody had submitted one complaint and that this action had been opened in error. The opinion’s footnote states that Moody paid the filing fees for the other action.
Ruling
The court dismissed this action as opened in error and without prejudice to Moody’s pending action under docket number 24-CV-3320 (RA). “Without prejudice” means the dismissal did not bar the related pending action. The court did not decide whether the alleged employment discrimination occurred or whether Moody’s claims had merit.
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 and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing costs. The clerk was directed to enter judgment dismissing this action without prejudice to the pending action.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.