Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 4, 2025

Black v. Dorsey

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-00829
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Black v. Dorsey, Judge Swain dismissed the action and denied fee-free appeal status.

Who this affects

Cory Black’s action was dismissed, and he was denied permission to appeal without paying the required fees. The judgment also resolves the claims against Officer Deandre Dorsey and Officer Matthew Cabillis.

What happened

Black v. Dorsey was brought by Cory Black against Officer Deandre Dorsey and Officer Matthew Cabillis. The judgment does not describe the underlying dispute or the reason for dismissal, instead referring to a January 30, 2025 order.

The court dismissed the action. It also ruled that an appeal would not be considered to have been taken in good faith and denied Cory Black permission to appeal without paying the required fees.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the February 4, 2025 judgment. The provided judgment does not state whether the dismissal was based on the merits or on a threshold issue.

The detailed version

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

Case
Black v. Dorsey · No. 1:25-cv-00829
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Feb. 4, 2025

Disposition

The court entered a civil judgment dismissing the action “for the reasons stated” in its January 30, 2025 order. That earlier order is not included in the provided text, so this judgment does not explain the basis for dismissal or identify the claims addressed.

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 therefore denied permission to proceed without paying the required fees for an appeal. The judgment does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

Classification

This is classified as a procedural order because the provided judgment disposes of the action without stating that the court decided the underlying legal dispute. The limited text does not permit a more specific characterization of the dismissal.

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.