Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 26, 2024

Lieber v. Spira

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:23-cv-06932
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro SeMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Lieber v. Spira, Judge Swain dismissed Lieber’s complaint after he failed to file an amended complaint and denied fee-free appeal status.

Who this affects

Shlomo Lieber’s action was dismissed after he did not file the amended complaint the court had ordered. His permission to proceed without paying the filing fee was also denied for purposes of an appeal.

What happened

Shlomo Lieber sued Aron Spira and other defendants, claiming they violated his federally protected rights. Lieber was representing himself and had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court had previously dismissed his complaint for failing to state a claim and gave him permission to file an amended complaint.

The court granted Lieber four extensions and then gave him one final 30-day opportunity to amend, warning that no further extensions would be granted. Lieber did not file an amended complaint. The court therefore dismissed the complaint for the reasons stated in its earlier dismissal order.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Lieber permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Lieber v. Spira · No. 1:23-cv-06932
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
June 26, 2024

Background

Shlomo Lieber proceeded without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee under the federal statute governing indigent litigants. He alleged that the defendants violated his federally protected rights.

The court had previously dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted and gave Lieber 30 days to file an amended complaint. The court later granted four extensions of time. In an order dated May 8, 2024, the court gave Lieber one final opportunity to amend, directed him to file within 30 days, and warned that no further extensions would be granted.

Ruling

Lieber did not file an amended complaint. The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), for the reasons stated in the November 11, 2023 dismissal order. The current order did not conduct a new merits analysis; it dismissed the action after Lieber failed to comply with the deadline to amend.

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Lieber permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.