Manchanda v. Attorney Grievance Committee 1st Department

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK RAHUL DEV MANCHANDA, Plaintiff, -against- 25-CV-3935 (LTS) ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE 1ST ORDER DEPARTMENT; NYS SUPREME COURT; APPELLATE DIVISION 1ST DEPARTMENT, Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff filed this action pro se. On May 16, 2025, the Court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, without prejudice, for failure to comply with the injunction issued in Manchanda v. Walsh, ECF 1:23-CV-7637, 56 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2024). On May 19, 2025, Plaintiff filed a document titled, “Response to Order of Dismissal without Prejudice with Motion Pursuant to Court Order Seeking Leave to file.” (ECF 17.) The Court denies Plaintiff’s leave to file application because he does not comply with the injunction set forth in Manchanda, No. 23-CV-7637. Specifically, Plaintiff’s leave application does not “identify by listing the full caption of every suit he has previously brought in any New York state or federal court against any defendant to the suit he wishes to file or remove” and he does not “provide a copy of each such complaint and a certified record of its disposition.” Id. at 2. Because Plaintiff does not comply with these two requirements, the Court denies the leave application.

This case remains closed. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 23, 2025 New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge