Pettus v. Mazzola
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-03106
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Pettus v. Mazzola, Judge Swain dismissed the action and denied fee-free appeal status because the appeal would not be taken in good faith.
James Pettus’s action was dismissed, and he was denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees under in forma pauperis status. The judgment also affects the named defendants, but the supplied text does not describe the claims or the basis for dismissal.
What happened
In Pettus v. Mazzola, the court dismissed James Pettus’s action for the reasons stated in an April 16, 2025, order. That earlier order is not included in the supplied opinion, so the specific basis for dismissal cannot be determined here.
The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Pettus permission to appeal without paying the required fees.
Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain entered the civil judgment on April 18, 2025. The supplied judgment does not describe the underlying claims or explain the April 16 order’s reasoning.
The detailed version
- Pettus v. Mazzola · No. 1:25-cv-03106
- Laura Swain
- Apr. 18, 2025
Disposition
The court entered a civil judgment dismissing the action for the reasons stated in its April 16, 2025, order. The supplied opinion consists of the April 18 judgment and does not include the April 16 order, so it does not reveal the specific claims, arguments, or legal grounds underlying the dismissal.
Appeal-related 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 in forma pauperis status for purposes of an appeal, meaning Pettus was not permitted to pursue an appeal without paying the required filing fees based on that status.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the supplied judgment dismisses the action without explaining or showing a decision on the underlying legal issues. The court’s ruling on appeal-related filing status was also ancillary to the judgment.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.