Samuels v. New York Department of Labor
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-08004
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Samuels v. New York Department of Labor, Judge Swain dismissed the action and denied fee-free appeal status.
Justin Samuels's action against the New York Department of Labor, the United States Department of Labor, Roberta Reardon, and Denise Montran was dismissed. Samuels was also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
The case was brought by Justin Samuels against the New York Department of Labor, the United States Department of Labor, Roberta Reardon, and Denise Montran. The judgment does not describe the claims or the underlying facts.
The court dismissed the action for the reasons stated in its January 3, 2025, order, which is not included in the provided text. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Samuels permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain entered the civil judgment on January 3, 2025. The provided judgment does not state whether the dismissal allows the action to be filed again.
The detailed version
- Samuels v. New York Department of Labor · No. 1:23-cv-08004
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 3, 2025
What the Judgment Says
The court entered a civil judgment dismissing the action. It gave as the reason the explanations in a January 3, 2025, order, but that order is not included in the provided opinion text. The judgment therefore does not identify the claims, the facts, or the legal basis for dismissal.
Appeal-Related Ruling
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the judgment would not be taken in good faith. Based on that certification, it denied in forma pauperis status—that is, permission to appeal without paying the required filing fees—for purposes of an appeal. The judgment does not say that an appeal is barred.
Disposition
The action was dismissed. The appeal-related request for in forma pauperis status was denied. The provided text does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, and it does not explain the dismissal's underlying basis.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.