UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK VICTORIA MARIE SERRANO, Plaintiff, 25-CV-4757 (LTS) -against- ORDER OF DISMISSAL MAYOR ADAMS; NEW YORK STATE, Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, filed this complaint against Mayor Eric Adams and the State of New York, arising from unspecified events allegedly occurring between 2021 and 2025. (ECF 1 at 4.) The Court dismisses the complaint for the following reasons. “Plaintiffs generally have no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in the same court and against the same defendant.” Adams v. Calif. Dep’t of Health Servs.,

, 688 (9th Cir. 2007), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell,

(2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). District courts thus have discretion to dismiss a later-filed action that is duplicative of proceedings already before it. Id.; see also Humphrey v. Ct. Clerk ex rel. U.S. Sup. Ct., No. 5:11-CV-0938,

, at *3 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2012) (holding that “dismissal of an action as duplicative has been found to fall within the ambit of the Court’s power to dismiss a complaint . . . pursuant to

(e)”). Plaintiff has previously submitted to this court a complaint against the State of New York in connection with unspecified events occurring during the same time period, and that matter is pending under docket number 25-CV-918 (LTS). As this complaint also names the State of New York, and appears to arise from events occurring beginning in 2021 and continuing until the present, no useful purpose would be served by litigating this duplicate lawsuit. Therefore, this complaint is dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff’s pending case under docket number 25- CV-918. If Plaintiff wishes to assert any other claims or name other defendants in connection with the events that are the subject of her submissions, she may, consistent with Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, amend her complaint in No. 25-CV-918 to include such claims.

CONCLUSION Plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed as duplicative of No. 25-CV-918 (LTS). The Court certifies, pursuant to

(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). The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment dismissing this case without prejudice. SO ORDERED. Dated: September 26, 2025 New York, New York

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