Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 18, 2025

Callaghan v. Otis Bantum Correctional Facility

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:24-cv-09611
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

Callaghan v. Otis Bantum Correctional Facility was dismissed, and Judge Swain denied fee-waiver status for any appeal.

Who this affects

Shakeem Callaghan and the defendants named in the action, including Otis Bantum Correctional Facility. The judgment also affects any appeal because the court denied in forma pauperis status for that purpose.

What happened

In Callaghan v. Otis Bantum Correctional Facility, the court dismissed Shakeem Callaghan’s action for the reasons given in a March 14, 2025, order.

The court also said that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Callaghan permission to proceed without paying the required appeal fees.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain entered the civil judgment on March 18, 2025. The judgment does not explain the reason for dismissing the action because it refers to the earlier order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Callaghan v. Otis Bantum Correctional Facility · No. 1:24-cv-09611
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Mar. 18, 2025

Disposition

The court entered a civil judgment dismissing the action “for the reasons stated” in its March 14, 2025, order. That earlier order is not included in the provided opinion, so the basis for the dismissal cannot be determined from this text.

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 this context, that status concerns whether the party may pursue the appeal under the court’s fee-related process.

Effect

The provided judgment dismisses Shakeem Callaghan’s action against Otis Bantum Correctional Facility and the other named defendants. It does not describe the claims, the parties’ arguments, or the reasoning in the March 14 order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.