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

Compres v. Doe

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-02259
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Compres v. Doe, Judge Swain dismissed the action and denied Angel Compres fee-free appeal status after finding any appeal would not be in good faith.

Who this affects

Angel Compres, whose action against Doe was dismissed and whose request to proceed without paying appeal filing fees was denied.

What happened

In Compres v. Doe, the court entered judgment dismissing Angel Compres’s action against Doe. The judgment says the dismissal was based on reasons given in a May 16, 2025, order, which is not included here.

The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. In practical terms, it denied Compres permission to appeal without paying filing fees.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the judgment on May 20, 2025. The available text does not explain why the action was dismissed or whether the court reached the underlying legal claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Compres v. Doe · No. 1:25-cv-02259
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
May 20, 2025

Ruling

The court entered a civil judgment dismissing the action brought by Angel Compres against Doe. The judgment states that the dismissal was entered “[f]or the reasons stated in the May 16, 2025, order.” That earlier order is not included in the provided opinion text, so the basis for dismissal cannot be determined from this document alone.

Appeal Status

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the judgment would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied in forma pauperis (IFP) status for purposes of an appeal. IFP status is permission to proceed without paying the ordinary filing fees.

Disposition

The action was dismissed. The judgment does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice. It also does not explain whether the court decided the merits of any claim. Because the available order disposes of the action without providing the underlying reasoning, this summary classifies it as a procedural order.

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.