Martinez v. Otis Bantum Correctional Center
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-09603
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Judge Swain dismissed Martinez v. Otis Bantum Correctional Facility and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal.
Roman Martinez’s action was dismissed. The judgment also denied him permission to appeal without paying the applicable fees and stated that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The available text does not explain the dismissal’s effect on the defendants or whether Martinez may refile.
What happened
In Martinez v. Otis Bantum Correctional Facility, the court entered a judgment dismissing Roman Martinez’s action. The judgment does not state why the action was dismissed; it refers to reasons in a March 5, 2025, order that is not included here.
The court also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Martinez permission to appeal without paying the required fees. The judgment does not add that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the judgment on March 7, 2025. Because the referenced March 5 order is not provided, the available text does not show whether the dismissal reached the merits or rested on a procedural ground.
The detailed version
- Martinez v. Otis Bantum Correctional Center · No. 1:24-cv-09603
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 7, 2025
Action and disposition
The court entered a civil judgment dismissing the action “for the reasons stated” in its March 5, 2025, order. That order is not included in the provided text, so the basis for dismissal cannot be determined from this judgment alone. The judgment does not state whether the dismissal was with prejudice or without prejudice.
Appeal-fee ruling
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court certified that any appeal from the judgment would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Roman Martinez permission to proceed without paying the applicable fees for an appeal. The judgment cited a Supreme Court decision explaining that good faith exists when an appellant seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue.
Classification note
This is classified as a procedural order because the provided judgment dismisses the action without explaining whether the court decided the underlying legal claims. The missing March 5 order could contain information affecting that classification.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.