Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 5, 2025

Smith v. Westhb Traverse House

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:24-cv-04961
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Smith v. Westhab Traverse House, Judge Swain dismissed Smith’s amended complaint for failure to state a claim and denied appeal-related fee-free status.

Who this affects

Kevin A. Smith’s amended complaint was dismissed; any state-law claims he may have been asserting were left undecided, and he was denied fee-free status for an appeal.

What happened

In Smith v. Westhab Traverse House, the court entered judgment after dismissing Kevin A. Smith’s amended complaint. The opinion says the complaint was filed under a procedure allowing a person to proceed without paying the usual filing fee.

The court dismissed the amended complaint because it did not state a claim for which relief could be granted. The court also declined to decide any state-law claims Smith may have been asserting.

Judge Laura Swain’s court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Smith fee-free status for an appeal. The judgment does not include the underlying reasons discussed in the court’s June 4 order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Smith v. Westhb Traverse House · No. 1:24-cv-04961
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
June 5, 2025

What the court decided

The court entered judgment dismissing Smith’s amended complaint. The judgment states that the complaint had been filed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), which permits qualifying litigants to proceed without prepaying court fees. The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.

Other claims and appeal status

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning it chose not to decide, over any state-law claims Smith may have been asserting. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the June 4, 2025 order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.

Information not included in this judgment

The judgment refers to the court’s June 4, 2025 order for the reasons supporting dismissal, but that order is not included in the provided text. The provided judgment therefore does not identify the specific allegations or legal theories that failed to state a claim. It also 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.