Johnson v. Fitzpatrick
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-00232
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Johnson v. Fitzpatrick, Judge Swain dismissed the action and denied status to appeal without paying filing fees.
The judgment dismisses Robert W. Johnson’s action against William J. Fitzpatrick and denies in forma pauperis status for any appeal.
What happened
In Johnson v. Fitzpatrick, Robert W. Johnson sued William J. Fitzpatrick in the Southern District of New York. The judgment states that the action was dismissed for the reasons given in a January 15, 2025 order, but this judgment does not repeat those reasons.
The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Johnson permission to appeal without paying the required fees.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain, the court’s chief district judge, entered the civil judgment on January 21, 2025. The judgment does not explain the underlying basis for the dismissal beyond referring to the earlier order.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Fitzpatrick · No. 1:25-cv-00232
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 21, 2025
Ruling
The court entered a civil judgment dismissing the action. It gave the reasons stated in its January 15, 2025 order, but that order is not included in the provided text. The judgment therefore does not show whether the dismissal was based on the merits, a procedural defect, or another ground.
The court also 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 for an appeal—that is, it denied permission to pursue the appeal without paying the required filing fees. The judgment cites Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962).
Disposition
The action was dismissed. In addition, in forma pauperis status was denied for purposes of an appeal. The court’s judgment does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Classification note
This is classified as a procedural order because the provided judgment does not itself decide the underlying legal question and relies on an earlier order for the dismissal’s reasons.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.