Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 14, 2025

Cuevas v. Otis Bantum Correctional Facility

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:24-cv-09633
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Arturo Cuevas v. City of New York, Judge Swain dismissed the complaint after Cuevas failed to file a required amended complaint and denied fee-free appeal status.

Who this affects

Arturo Cuevas's complaint was dismissed after he did not file the required amended complaint. The court also denied him permission to appeal without paying the filing fee and directed entry of judgment.

What happened

Arturo Cuevas sued the City of New York and other defendants. The opinion does not describe the claims or the events underlying the lawsuit.

The court had ordered Cuevas to file an amended complaint within 60 days and warned that failing to do so would result in dismissal. Cuevas did not file one, so the court dismissed the complaint under the statute governing complaints filed without paying court fees.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. She also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Cuevas permission to appeal without paying filing fees.

The detailed version

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

Case
Cuevas v. Otis Bantum Correctional Facility · No. 1:24-cv-09633
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
May 14, 2025

Background

Arturo Cuevas filed a complaint against the City of New York and other defendants without paying the filing fee. The opinion does not identify the complaint's claims or describe the underlying facts.

On February 5, 2025, the court ordered Cuevas to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The order warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal. Cuevas did not file an amended complaint.

Ruling

The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), a provision governing complaints filed without paying court fees. The order does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. Because the dismissal rested on Cuevas's failure to file the required amended complaint, the court did not address the underlying claims in this order.

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 appeal without paying the filing fee. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in the action.

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.