Soto v. Otis Bantum Correctional Facility
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-09624
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Soto v. Otis Bantum Correctional Facility, Chief Judge Swain dismissed the action and denied fee-free appeal status, citing reasons stated in an earlier order.
Frank Soto's action was dismissed, and his ability to appeal without paying filing fees was denied. The provided judgment does not specify any further effect on the defendants.
What happened
In Frank Soto v. Otis Bantum Correctional Facility, et al., the court entered judgment dismissing the action for reasons stated in its March 14, 2025, order. The available opinion does not include those reasons.
The court also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Soto permission to appeal without paying the filing fees. The judgment does not otherwise explain the basis for that conclusion.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the judgment on March 17, 2025. The action was dismissed, and appeal-related fee-free status was denied.
The detailed version
- Soto v. Otis Bantum Correctional Facility · No. 1:24-cv-09624
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 17, 2025
Ruling
The court entered a civil judgment dismissing the action. It stated that the reasons for dismissal were provided in an order dated March 14, 2025. That earlier order is not included in the provided text, so the basis for dismissal cannot be determined from this judgment alone.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the judgment would not be taken in good faith. As a result, it denied permission to appeal without paying the required filing fees. The judgment cited Coppedge v. United States for the standard that good faith exists when an appellant seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue.
Disposition
The action was dismissed. Appeal-related fee-free status was denied. Based on the available text, this is classified as a procedural order because the judgment itself does not decide the underlying legal merits and instead relies on reasons stated in an unavailable earlier order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.