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

Bradley v. Otis Bantum Correctional Center

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:24-cv-09668
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In James Bradley v. The City of New York, Judge Swain dismissed Bradley’s complaint after he failed to file the required amended complaint.

Who this affects

James Bradley’s complaint was dismissed after he failed to file the required amended complaint. The court also denied him permission to appeal without paying the filing fee. The order did not adjudicate the underlying claims against the defendants.

What happened

In James Bradley v. The City of New York, the court had ordered Bradley to file an amended complaint within 60 days and warned that failing to do so would result in dismissal. Bradley did not file one.

The court dismissed the complaint under the statute governing screening of cases filed without paying the filing fee. It also denied Bradley permission to appeal without paying the fee, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. The order did not address the underlying claims against the defendants.

The detailed version

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

Case
Bradley v. Otis Bantum Correctional Center · No. 1:24-cv-09668
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
May 14, 2025

Background

James Bradley filed the complaint without paying the filing fee under the federal statute allowing qualifying litigants to proceed without prepaying that fee. On January 27, 2025, the court ordered Bradley to file an amended complaint within 60 days and expressly warned that failing to do so would result in dismissal.

Ruling

Bradley did not file an amended complaint. The court therefore dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), a provision governing the court’s screening of cases filed without prepaying the filing fee. The opinion does not provide further details about the claims or explain the underlying basis for the screening dismissal.

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in the action.

Effect

The order dismissed Bradley’s complaint and ended the action in the district court. It did not decide the merits of the underlying claims. The opinion does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

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.