Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 4, 2025

Morales v. Hilton

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-02653
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Morales v. Hilton, Judge Swain denied the petition and dismissed the action without prejudice because Morales neither paid the fee nor submitted an IFP application.

Who this affects

Luis Morales’s petition and case were denied and dismissed without prejudice. Brian Hilton is the named respondent.

What happened

In Morales v. Hilton, Luis Morales filed a petition in a habeas case. The court had ordered him to either submit an application to proceed without paying the filing fee or pay the required $5 fee within 30 days.

Morales did neither. The court therefore denied the petition and dismissed the action without prejudice, meaning the dismissal does not bar a new filing.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain also ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue and denied permission to proceed without paying fees on appeal. The clerk was directed to enter judgment dismissing the action and denying the certificate.

The detailed version

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

Case
Morales v. Hilton · No. 1:25-cv-02653
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
June 4, 2025

Background

Luis Morales filed a habeas corpus petition. On April 4, 2025, the Court ordered Morales, within 30 days, to either submit a completed application to proceed without paying the filing fee or pay the $5 fee required to file a habeas corpus action. The order warned that failing to comply would result in dismissal.

Morales did not submit the application or pay the fee.

Ruling

The Court denied the petition and dismissed the action, without prejudice. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal does not bar a new filing. The stated basis for the dismissal was Morales’s failure to comply with the filing-fee or fee-waiver requirement.

Appeal-related rulings

The Court found that the petition made no substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied and therefore ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue. A certificate of appealability is a document required for an appeal in this type of case. The Court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.

The Court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment dismissing the action and denying a certificate of appealability.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.