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

Buxbaum v. Trump

Judge
John Koeltl
Docket
1:25-cv-03053
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Buxbaum v. Trump, Judge Koeltl dismissed the action as frivolous, denied permission to appeal without paying fees, and closed the case.

Who this affects

Michael Buxbaum’s action against Donald John Trump was dismissed, the case was closed, and permission to appeal without paying filing fees was denied.

What happened

The judgment in Buxbaum v. Trump says the court had dismissed Michael Buxbaum’s action as frivolous in an order dated May 5, 2025. It does not explain what the action was about.

The court also found that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The case was closed.

Judge John Koeltl is the identified judge. The May 6 judgment records the dismissal, the denial of fee-free appeal status, and the closing of the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Buxbaum v. Trump · No. 1:25-cv-03053
Judge
John Koeltl
Date
May 6, 2025

Background

Michael Buxbaum sued Donald John Trump. The provided judgment does not describe the allegations, claims, or requested relief. It refers to the court’s earlier order dated May 5, 2025.

Court’s Ruling

The judgment states that the court dismissed the action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The judgment does not add the reasons for that conclusion.

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal. The case was closed.

Effect of the Judgment

The action was dismissed, and the judgment does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The ruling also denied fee-free status for an appeal. Judge John Koeltl is the judge identified for this case.

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.