Sanchez v. Otis Bantum Correctional Center
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-09626
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Sanchez v. City of New York: Chief Judge Swain dismissed the complaint after Sanchez failed to file the required amended complaint.
Ceda Sanchez's complaint was dismissed, and her permission to appeal without paying the filing fee was denied. The defendants were affected by the entry of judgment ending the action.
What happened
In Ceda Sanchez v. The City of New York, et al., the court had ordered Sanchez to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The order warned that failing to do so would lead to dismissal.
Sanchez did not file an amended complaint. The court therefore dismissed the complaint, which had been filed without paying the filing fee, under the federal statute governing such cases.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Sanchez permission to appeal without paying the filing fee. The clerk was directed to enter judgment.
The detailed version
- Sanchez v. Otis Bantum Correctional Center · No. 1:24-cv-09626
- Laura Swain
- May 14, 2025
Background
On February 5, 2025, the court ordered Ceda Sanchez to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The order expressly stated that failure to comply would result in dismissal. Sanchez did not file an amended complaint.
Ruling
The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The opinion states that the complaint had been filed without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The order does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Appeal and Judgment
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment.
Effect of the Order
The order ended this action by dismissing Sanchez's complaint after she failed to comply with the deadline for filing an amended complaint. It did not decide the underlying claims on their merits.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.