Castillo v. Snedeker
- Philip Halpern
- 7:21-cv-11109
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Castillo v. Snedeker, Judge Halpern dismissed Castillo’s false-report and due-process claims against Snedeker with prejudice and denied fee-free appeal status.
Pedro Castillo’s claims against C.O. Robert C. Snedeker, and Castillo’s ability to appeal without paying court fees.
What happened
In Castillo v. Snedeker, Pedro Castillo sued C.O. Robert C. Snedeker and two other defendants. The judgment concerns Castillo’s claims against Snedeker.
The court granted the motion to dismiss Castillo’s claim against Snedeker concerning a false misbehavior report. It also dismissed Castillo’s Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim against Snedeker after Castillo had been given an opportunity to correct the complaint but did not do so.
Judge Halpern dismissed both claims with prejudice, meaning the judgment bars refiling those claims. The court also denied Castillo permission to appeal without paying the required fees and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Castillo v. Snedeker · No. 7:21-cv-11109
- Philip Halpern
- July 8, 2024
Background
Pedro Castillo was the plaintiff. The defendants named in the judgment were C.O. Robert C. Snedeker, Donald Venetozzi, and C.H.O. Katherine Henley. The judgment refers to an earlier court opinion and order and states that Castillo had been given an opportunity to correct deficiencies concerning a remaining claim.
Rulings
The court granted the motion to dismiss Castillo’s claim against Snedeker concerning a false misbehavior report, with prejudice. The court also dismissed with prejudice Castillo’s Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim against Snedeker. The court explained that Castillo had already been given an opportunity to correct the complaint’s deficiencies and that further amendment would be futile.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Castillo permission to appeal without paying the required court fees. The judgment states that the case is closed.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it grants a motion to dismiss rather than deciding the underlying due-process or false-report dispute on its merits. The supplied text is a judgment that refers to a separate opinion and order; that separate document is not included here.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.