Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 20, 2025

Washington v. DHS Department of Homeless Services

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:24-cv-05042
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Sandra A. Washington v. DHS, Judge Swain dismissed the action and denied fee-free appeal status, finding any appeal would not be in good faith.

Who this affects

Sandra A. Washington and the defendants identified in the caption as DHS and other defendants; Washington’s ability to appeal without paying filing fees was also affected.

What happened

Sandra A. Washington sued DHS and other defendants in the Southern District of New York. The judgment does not describe the claims or the reasons for dismissal; it refers to a March 5, 2025, order that is not included here.

The court dismissed the action. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Washington permission to appeal without paying the filing fees.

Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain entered the civil judgment on May 20, 2025.

The detailed version

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

Case
Washington v. DHS Department of Homeless Services · No. 1:24-cv-05042
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
May 20, 2025

Background

The opinion is a civil judgment in Sandra A. Washington’s action against DHS and other defendants. It does not state the claims, the factual allegations, or the basis for the court’s dismissal. Instead, it says the action is dismissed for the reasons given in the court’s March 5, 2025, order, which is not provided here.

Ruling

The court dismissed the action. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court certified that any appeal from the judgment would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Washington permission to appeal without paying the filing fees. The judgment was signed by Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain.

Scope of the available opinion

Because the March 5, 2025, order is not included, this judgment alone does not show whether the dismissal was based on the merits, a pleading defect, jurisdiction, screening, or another ground.

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.