UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MARCUS WRIGHT, Plaintiff, -against- 25-CV-2683 (LTS) BRONX CRIMINAL COURT; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; WARDEN; BRONX ORDER LEGAL AID SOCIETY; BRONX RYER AVE PRECINCT; SUSAN LAURIE GANS; MICHAEL FINEMAN, Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is detained at the Rose M. Singer Center on Rikers Island, brought an earlier complaint, Wright v. Bronx Criminal Court, No. 24-CV-7923 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y.) (“Wright I”), in which she alleged that she was unlawfully arrested on April 16, 2024, on false charges of stealing clothing from a laundromat in Bronx County.1 In Wright I, Plaintiff sued the Bronx Criminal Court, the DOC, “Warden,” the Bronx Legal Aid Society, the “Bronx Ryer Avenue Precinct” of the New York City Police Department, and defense attorneys Susan Laurie Gans and Michael Fineman. By order dated January 6, 2025, the Court dismissed that complaint, with 30 days’ leave to replead her claims in an amended complaint. Plaintiff then submitted letters saying that she did not have an amended complaint form, and the Court granted her extensions of time to file her amended complaint. On March 27, 2025, the Court received a complaint naming the same defendants sued in Wright I, and opened the complaint as this new action under docket number 25-CV-2683. Upon

1 Public records maintained by the New York City Department of Correction (“DOC”) identify Plaintiff as female. review of the complaint, however, it appears that Plaintiff intended this to be her amended complaint in Wright I. Plaintiff writes in the complaint that it “is pertaining to civil suit (24-CV- 7923) I filed but was dismissed with leave to replead . . . . Basically I’m repleading this civil lawsuit . . . .” (ECF 1 at 4.) Because it appears that this complaint, 25-CV-2683 (ECF 1), was

intended to be filed as the amended complaint in Wright I, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to file it as such and to dismiss this action without prejudice. CONCLUSION The Court directs the Clerk of Court to file the complaint, 25-CV-2683 (ECF 1), as the amended complaint in Wright, No. 24-CV-7923 (LTS). The Court dismisses this action, without prejudice to Plaintiff’s pursuing her claims in Wright, No. 24-CV-7923 (LTS). The Court certifies under

(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States,

(1962). The Court directs the Clerk of Court enter a civil judgment. SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2025 New York, New York

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