Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 31, 2025

Mayo v. Sergent Reid

Judge
Philip Halpern
Docket
7:23-cv-09719
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Mayo v. Reid, Judge Halpern dismissed the complaint after Mayo failed to file the required amended complaint, and denied fee-free status for an appeal.

Who this affects

Abderanman Mayo's complaint was dismissed, his fee-free status for an appeal was denied, and the case was closed. The opinion does not describe any separate relief involving Sergeant Reid or the other defendants.

What happened

In Abderanman Mayo v. Sergeant Reid, the court had ordered Mayo to file an amended complaint within 30 days. The order warned that failing to do so would lead to dismissal.

Mayo did not file an amended complaint. The court therefore dismissed the complaint under the federal statute governing complaints filed without paying the filing fee. The order does not address the underlying claims.

Judge Philip M. Halpern also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Mayo fee-free status for an appeal. The clerk was directed to close the case and mail Mayo a copy of the order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Mayo v. Sergent Reid · No. 7:23-cv-09719
Judge
Philip Halpern
Date
Jan. 31, 2025

Background

On December 18, 2024, the Court ordered Plaintiff Abderanman Mayo to file an amended complaint within 30 days. The order expressly stated that failure to comply would result in dismissal. Mayo did not file an amended complaint.

The opinion identifies the complaint as having been filed without prepaying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). It does not describe the claims or allegations in the complaint.

Ruling

The Court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii). The order does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice, and it does not reach the merits of Mayo's claims.

The Court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Mayo permission to appeal without prepaying the filing fee. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail the order to Mayo, note service on the docket, and close the case.

Effect

The complaint was dismissed because Mayo did not file the required amended complaint. The order ended the case and denied fee-free appeal status, but it does not explain what legal claims Mayo asserted or otherwise resolve those claims.

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.