Jones v. Acker
- Louis Stanton
- 1:24-cv-07904
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Jones v. Acker, Judge Stanton dismissed the plaintiffs’ amended complaint after screening and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
Shelly Jones and Warren Jones, whose amended complaint was dismissed and whose permission to appeal without paying the filing fee was denied.
What happened
Jones v. Acker involved Shelly Jones and Warren Jones’s amended complaint against the listed defendants. The judgment says the complaint was filed without paying the filing fee under a statute allowing that procedure.
The court dismissed the amended complaint under the prisoner-and-indigent-litigant screening statute cited in the judgment. The judgment does not explain the underlying reasons; it refers to a May 28, 2025 Opinion and Order that is not included here.
Judge Stanton’s judgment also says an appeal would not be taken in good faith, denied the plaintiffs permission to appeal without paying the filing fee, entered civil judgment dismissing the action, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Jones v. Acker · No. 1:24-cv-07904
- Louis Stanton
- June 2, 2025
What the judgment says
The judgment states that Shelly Jones and Warren Jones filed an amended complaint without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). It says the amended complaint was dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and (iii), although the supplied text renders the first subsection as “(iu).”
Reasons for dismissal
The judgment does not describe the claims, the parties’ arguments, or the court’s reasons for dismissal. Instead, it adopts the reasons stated in the court’s Opinion and Order dated May 28, 2025. That opinion is not included in the supplied text, so the specific basis for dismissal cannot be determined here.
Appeal and case status
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 entered civil judgment dismissing the action and stated that the case was closed. The judgment does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.