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

Harding v. State of New York

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:22-cv-06285
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Harding v. Gould, Judge Briccetti granted the motion to dismiss, dismissed all claims, entered judgment for defendants, and closed the case.

Who this affects

Cheyenne C. Harding’s claims were dismissed, judgment was entered for the named defendants, and Harding was denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.

What happened

In Harding v. State of New York, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The judgment does not explain the reasons, instead referring to an August 9 opinion and a September 26 order.

The court dismissed all of Cheyenne C. Harding’s claims and entered judgment for the defendants. It also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and closed the case.

Judge Vincent Briccetti issued the underlying rulings referenced in the judgment, which was entered on September 26, 2024.

The detailed version

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

Case
Harding v. State of New York · No. 7:22-cv-06285
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
Sept. 26, 2024

Disposition

The court granted the motion to dismiss. It entered judgment for the defendants and dismissed all of Cheyenne C. Harding’s claims. The judgment states that these actions were taken for the reasons given in the court’s opinion dated August 9, 2024, and its order dated September 26, 2024; those documents are not included in the supplied text.

Appeal-Filing-Fee Ruling

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the judgment would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Harding permission to appeal without paying the filing fees. The judgment does not state that an appeal is barred.

Case Status

The court ordered that the case be closed. The judgment identifies the defendants as Investigator Timothy P. Gould, Trooper Timothy H. Finnegan, Investigator James Wollman, and other state police employees, in their individual and official capacities.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.