Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 23, 2025

Ballentine v. Credit One Bank N.A.

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:24-cv-04710
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Ballentine v. Credit One Bank N.A., Judge Swain dismissed the federal claims, declined state claims, and denied appeal fee-waiver status.

Who this affects

Plaintiff’s federal claims were dismissed, any state-law claims were not heard by the federal court, and Plaintiff was denied in forma pauperis status for an appeal.

What happened

In Ballentine v. Credit One Bank N.A., the court had ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The order warned that failing to do so would lead to dismissal, but Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint.

The court dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims because they did not state a claim for which relief could be granted. It declined to decide any state-law claims because the federal claims had been dismissed.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Plaintiff permission to appeal without paying the required fees.

The detailed version

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

Case
Ballentine v. Credit One Bank N.A. · No. 1:24-cv-04710
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Jan. 23, 2025

Background

On November 21, 2024, the court ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The order stated that failure to comply would result in dismissal. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint.

Ruling

The court dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). This provision permits dismissal of claims that do not adequately state a legally recognized basis for relief.

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Supplemental jurisdiction is the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims after federal claims are before it; the court declined to use that authority here.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied in forma pauperis status for an appeal, meaning Plaintiff could not pursue an appeal without paying the required fees under that status.

Disposition

The federal claims were dismissed, the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims, and in forma pauperis status was denied for purposes of an appeal.

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.