Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 6, 2025

Satchell v. The City of New York

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-03515
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Satchell v. Employees Dept of Corrections, Judge Swain dismissed the action and denied appeal-related in forma pauperis status.

Who this affects

The action brought by John Satchell was dismissed, and Satchell was denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.

What happened

In Satchell v. Employees Dept of Corrections, John Satchell sued Employees Dept of Corrections, the State of New York, and several unidentified individuals.

The court dismissed the action for the reasons stated in its May 5, 2025, order. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status.

Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain entered the civil judgment on May 6, 2025. The opinion provided does not include the May 5 order's explanation for the dismissal.

The detailed version

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

Case
Satchell v. The City of New York · No. 1:25-cv-03515
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
May 6, 2025

Background

John Satchell brought an action against Employees Dept of Corrections, the State of New York, four defendants identified as John Doe, and one defendant identified as Jane Doe. The provided civil judgment does not describe the claims or the events underlying the action.

Ruling

The court dismissed the action for the reasons stated in a May 5, 2025, order. That earlier order is not included in the provided opinion, so the basis for 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. As a result, it denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The judgment was signed by Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain and dated May 6, 2025.

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.