Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 6, 2025

Santos v. Quaker Oat Pesticide

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:24-cv-05396
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Santos v. Quaker Oat Pesticide, Judge Swain dismissed the action and denied Santos permission to appeal without paying filing fees.

Who this affects

Jody L. Santos, whose action was dismissed and whose request to appeal without paying filing fees was denied.

What happened

Jody L. Santos sued Quaker Oat Pesticide in the Southern District of New York. The judgment does not describe the claims or the underlying events.

The court dismissed the action for the reasons stated in an October 26, 2024 order, which is not included in the provided opinion. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Santos permission to appeal without paying filing fees.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain entered the civil judgment on January 6, 2025. The judgment does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

The detailed version

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

Case
Santos v. Quaker Oat Pesticide · No. 1:24-cv-05396
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Jan. 6, 2025

Background

The provided document is a civil judgment in an action brought by Jody L. Santos against Quaker Oat Pesticide. It does not identify the claims, the factual allegations, or the parties’ arguments. The judgment refers to an October 26, 2024 order for the reasons supporting dismissal, but that order is not included here.

Ruling

The court dismissed the action. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the judgment would not be taken in good faith. As a result, the court denied Santos permission to appeal without paying the required filing fees. The judgment does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

Effect

The provided judgment ends the action in the district court. Because the October 26 order is not provided, the basis for dismissal and whether the court reached any underlying legal issue cannot be determined from this document alone.

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.