Avila v. New York City Housing Authority
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-06680
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Avila v. New York City Housing Authority, Judge Swain dismissed the action and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Jimmy Avila, the New York City Housing Authority, and CIDNY; the action was dismissed, and Avila was denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
In Avila v. New York City Housing Authority, the court entered a judgment dismissing Jimmy Avila’s action against the New York City Housing Authority and CIDNY.
The judgment says the dismissal was based on reasons explained in an April 30, 2025, order, but that order is not included here. The judgment therefore does not show why the action was dismissed.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The judgment does not say that an appeal is barred.
The detailed version
- Avila v. New York City Housing Authority · No. 1:24-cv-06680
- Laura Swain
- May 5, 2025
Ruling
The court entered a civil judgment dismissing the action. The judgment states that the reasons for dismissal appear in an April 30, 2025, order, which is not included in the provided opinion text. As a result, the basis for dismissal cannot be determined from this judgment alone.
Appeal-Filing-Fee Ruling
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 Jimmy Avila permission to appeal without paying the required filing fees. This ruling concerns payment of appeal fees; it does not state that an appeal is prohibited.
Parties Affected
The judgment names Jimmy Avila as the plaintiff and the New York City Housing Authority and CIDNY as defendants. It dismisses the action and denies fee-free appeal status to Avila.
Classification
This is classified as a procedural order because the provided judgment disposes of the action without addressing the underlying legal issues. The classification may be affected by the missing April 30 order, whose contents are not provided.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.