Cantillo v. Dept. of Corrections
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-05277
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Cantillo v. Dept. of Corrections, Judge Swain dismissed the action and denied fee-free appeal status after finding an appeal would not be in good faith.
Richard Cantillo’s action was dismissed, and he was denied permission to appeal without prepaying court fees. The judgment does not otherwise describe the effects on the defendants.
What happened
In Cantillo v. Dept. of Corrections, the court dismissed Richard Cantillo’s action for the reasons given in an earlier February 5, 2025, order. That earlier order is not included here, so this judgment does not explain why the case was dismissed.
The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. As a result, it denied Cantillo permission to proceed without paying the required court fees for an appeal.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain entered the civil judgment on February 7, 2025. The judgment does not state whether the dismissal allows the action to be filed again.
The detailed version
- Cantillo v. Dept. of Corrections · No. 1:24-cv-05277
- Laura Swain
- Feb. 7, 2025
Disposition
The court entered a civil judgment dismissing the action “for the reasons stated” in its February 5, 2025, order. That order is not included in the provided text, so the basis for the dismissal and the court’s analysis of the claims cannot be determined from this judgment alone.
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 therefore denied in forma pauperis status—that is, permission to appeal without prepaying court fees—for the purpose of an appeal. The judgment cites Coppedge v. United States for the principle that good faith exists when an appellant seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the provided judgment dismisses the action without stating that the court reached the underlying legal merits. The judgment does not specify whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.