Chauntique v. Otis Bantum Correctional Center
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-09650
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In David Chauntique v. Otis Bantum Correctional Facility, Judge Swain dismissed the action and denied fee-free appeal status.
David Chauntique’s action was dismissed, affecting his claims against Otis Bantum Correctional Facility and the other defendants named in the caption. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying the required filing fees.
What happened
In David Chauntique v. Otis Bantum Correctional Facility, the court entered judgment dismissing David Chauntique’s action against Otis Bantum Correctional Facility and other defendants. The judgment says the reasons were given in a February 25, 2025, order, which is not included here.
The court also found that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Chauntique permission to appeal without paying the required fees.
Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the judgment on February 26, 2025.
The detailed version
- Chauntique v. Otis Bantum Correctional Center · No. 1:24-cv-09650
- Laura Swain
- Feb. 26, 2025
Disposition
The court entered a civil judgment dismissing the action. The judgment states that the reasons for dismissal appear in the court’s February 25, 2025, order. That earlier order is not included in the provided opinion text, so the basis for dismissal cannot be determined from this document 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 the plaintiff permission to proceed without paying the required filing fees for an appeal. The judgment cites Coppedge v. United States for the standard that good faith exists when an appellant seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue.
Judge and Affected Parties
Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the judgment. The dismissal affects David Chauntique’s action against Otis Bantum Correctional Facility and the other defendants named in the caption. The provided text does not identify the claims or explain whether the dismissal was based on the merits or a threshold issue.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.