Doe v. Casey
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-01851
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Jane Doe v. Richard Casey, Judge Swain dismissed the action and denied fee-free appeal status.
Jane Doe’s action was dismissed, and her ability to appeal without paying court fees was denied. The judgment also resolved the action against Richard Casey and the other defendants, although the provided text does not describe their positions.
What happened
In Jane Doe v. Richard Casey, the court entered judgment dismissing Jane Doe’s action against Richard Casey and the other defendants. The judgment does not explain the reason for dismissal; it refers to a May 2, 2025, order that is not included here.
The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Jane Doe in forma pauperis status for purposes of an appeal. In plain English, the court refused to allow an appeal without the required filing fees based on that certification.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the May 5, 2025, civil judgment. The judgment does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Doe v. Casey · No. 1:25-cv-01851
- Laura Swain
- May 5, 2025
Ruling
The court entered a civil judgment dismissing the action. It stated that the reasons for dismissal were given in a May 2, 2025, order, but that order is not included in the provided opinion text. As a result, the basis for the dismissal and whether the court reached the merits cannot be determined from this text.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the judgment would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied in forma pauperis status for purposes of an appeal. In forma pauperis status allows a person to proceed without paying required court fees; this denial concerned an appeal from this judgment.
Disposition
The action was dismissed. In forma pauperis status was denied for purposes of an appeal. The judgment does not say that the dismissal was with prejudice or without prejudice.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.