UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK LISA MILLER, Plaintiff, 25-CV-6765 (LTS) -against- ORDER OF DISMISSAL UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, Defendant. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Lisa Miller initiated an action in the Northern District of Texas titled “Whistleblower Report.” In her “report,” she complained about the undersigned’s decision in an action filed in the Southern District of New York. By order dated July 18, 2025, the Northern District of Texas construed the submission as a complaint and, after noting that it was unclear who Miller intended to sue, listed Lisa Miller as the Plaintiff and the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York as the Defendant. The Northern District of Texas then determined that venue would be proper in this District, as Miller complained about a decision originating from this court. Accordingly, the Northern District of Texas transferred the action to this court, and the Clerk’s Office of this court opened the transferred matter as a new civil action. On September 11, 2025, the Clerk’s Office received a letter from Miller where she states that she “never filed the above-referenced case, never named a defendant, and never initiated litigation in this matter.” (ECF 8 ¶ 1.) Miller states that “[t]he true filer of the original Rule 27 preservation motion was Goma KC . . . [and that] [m]y name appears only because I authored certain whistleblower reports that were attached in support of Ms. K’s filing. That does not make me a plaintiff or party.” (Id.) Miller asserts that “[b]ecause this docket is fraudulent and retaliatory, I will not participate in it further.” (Id.) The Court construes Plaintiff’s September 11, 2025 letter as a request to withdraw this action. The Court grants the request, and Plaintiff’s submission is voluntarily dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a).1 The Court directs the Clerk of Court to terminate any motions in this action and to close this case.

The Court certifies under

(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,

(1962). SO ORDERED. Dated: September 25, 2025 New York, New York

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

1 A voluntary dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) is without prejudice. “But if the plaintiff previously dismissed any federal- or state-court action based on or including the same claim, a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B).