Jaime v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-04091
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Jaime v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision was dismissed, and Judge Swain denied fee-free appeal status.
Luis Jaime’s action against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and the other named defendants was dismissed; Jaime was also denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.
What happened
In Jaime v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, the court entered a civil judgment dismissing Luis Jaime’s action against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and other defendants.
The judgment says the dismissal was based on reasons given in a March 4, 2025 order, but that order is not included here. This document therefore does not explain the claims or the specific reason for dismissal.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain also found that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Jaime permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.
The detailed version
- Jaime v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision · No. 1:24-cv-04091
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 5, 2025
Ruling
The court entered a civil judgment dismissing this action. The judgment states that the dismissal was ordered “for the reasons stated” in a March 4, 2025 order. That earlier order is not included in the provided text, so the specific basis for dismissal cannot be determined from this judgment alone.
Appeal and Filing Fees
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Luis Jaime permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal. The judgment cites a Supreme Court decision explaining that good faith exists when an appellant seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue.
Effect
The action was dismissed. The provided judgment does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, and it does not identify the claims or explain whether the dismissal was based on the merits or on a procedural ground.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.