Winters v. Otis Bantum Correctional Center
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-09607
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Winters v. Otis Bantum Correctional Facility, Judge Swain dismissed the action and denied appeal-related in forma pauperis status.
The action brought by Terrell Winters was dismissed. The court also denied appeal-related permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.
What happened
In Winters v. Otis Bantum Correctional Facility, the court entered a judgment dismissing the action for the reasons given in its March 11, 2025, order. That earlier order is not included in the provided text, so the specific reason for dismissal is unclear.
The court also determined that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Terrell Winters permission to proceed without paying the appeal filing fee. The judgment does not explain the underlying claims or the basis for that determination.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the judgment on March 14, 2025. The provided judgment does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Winters v. Otis Bantum Correctional Center · No. 1:24-cv-09607
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 14, 2025
Disposition
The court entered a civil judgment dismissing the action. It stated that the dismissal was based on the reasons explained in a March 11, 2025, order. That order is not included in the provided opinion text, so the specific claims, legal standards, and reasons for dismissal cannot be determined from this judgment alone.
Appeal-Filing-Fee Determination
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 for purposes of an appeal. In plain English, the court denied permission to pursue an appeal without paying the required filing fee. The judgment cites Coppedge v. United States for the standard that good faith exists when an appellant seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue.
What the Judgment Does Not State
The judgment does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. It also does not provide the underlying facts, claims, or explanation from the March 11 order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.