Abdullah v. Otis Bantum Correctional Center
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-09669
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Abdullah v. Otis Bantum Correctional Center, Judge Swain dismissed the action and denied fee-free appeal status.
Khalif Abdullah and the defendants named in the judgment, including Otis Bantum Correctional Center; any appeal by Abdullah is affected by the denial of fee-free appeal status.
What happened
In Abdullah v. Otis Bantum Correctional Center, the Southern District of New York entered a civil judgment against Khalif Abdullah. The judgment says the action was dismissed for the reasons stated in a February 4, 2025 order, which is not included here.
The court also determined that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Abdullah permission to appeal without paying the filing fees.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the judgment on February 4, 2025. The judgment does not explain the underlying reasons for dismissing the action.
The detailed version
- Abdullah v. Otis Bantum Correctional Center · No. 1:24-cv-09669
- Laura Swain
- Feb. 4, 2025
What the judgment says
The court entered a civil judgment stating that the action brought by Khalif Abdullah against Otis Bantum Correctional Center and the other defendants was dismissed. The judgment gives the reasons stated in a separate February 4, 2025 order, but that order is not part of the provided text. The available judgment therefore does not identify the legal basis for the dismissal or say whether the court reached the merits of Abdullah’s claims.
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. It denied Abdullah permission to proceed without paying the appeal filing fees. The judgment cites a Supreme Court decision explaining that good faith exists when an appellant seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue.
Disposition
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered that the action be dismissed and denied fee-free appeal status. The judgment does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.