Johnson v. Onondaga County DDS-Es Fair Hearings - SP
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-01617
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Johnson v. Onondaga County DSS-ES Fair Hearings-SP, Judge Swain dismissed the action and denied Johnson permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
Robert W. Johnson's action was dismissed, and his request to appeal without prepaying fees was denied. Onondaga County DSS-ES Fair Hearings - SP was the named defendant.
What happened
Robert W. Johnson sued Onondaga County DSS-ES Fair Hearings-SP in the Southern District of New York. The judgment does not describe the claims or the events behind the lawsuit.
The court dismissed the action for the reasons stated in an earlier March 7, 2025, order. The court also found that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Johnson permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain entered the civil judgment on March 11, 2025. The judgment does not include the reasons for dismissal from the earlier order.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Onondaga County DDS-Es Fair Hearings - SP · No. 1:25-cv-01617
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 11, 2025
Background
The opinion is a civil judgment in Robert W. Johnson's action against Onondaga County DSS-ES Fair Hearings - SP. The provided text does not identify the claims, the factual allegations, or the defendant's position. It refers to a March 7, 2025, order for the reasons supporting dismissal, but that order is not included.
Rulings
The court dismissed the action. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the judgment would not be taken in good faith. Based on that certification, the court denied Johnson in forma pauperis status for purposes of an appeal, meaning he was not permitted to appeal without prepaying the required fees.
Disposition
Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain entered the judgment on March 11, 2025. The provided judgment does not state whether the dismissal was based on a threshold issue or on the merits; because it disposes of the action without explaining the underlying legal question, this summary classifies it as a procedural order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.