Morales v. Hilton
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-02653
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Morales v. Hilton, Judge Swain dismissed the action and denied in forma pauperis status for an appeal, based on reasons in an unavailable June 4 order.
Luis Morales’s action was dismissed, and his permission to proceed without paying the filing costs for an appeal was denied. The provided opinion does not state what claims or underlying legal issues were involved.
What happened
In Morales v. Hilton, the court entered judgment dismissing Luis Morales’s action against Brian Hilton. The opinion does not explain the claims or the reasons for dismissal; it refers to a June 4, 2025, order that is not included here.
The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Morales permission to proceed without paying the appeal’s filing costs. The opinion does not provide further explanation for that decision.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the judgment on June 5, 2025. Because the stated reasons for dismissal are in an unavailable prior order, this summary cannot determine whether the court reached the underlying legal issues.
The detailed version
- Morales v. Hilton · No. 1:25-cv-02653
- Laura Swain
- June 5, 2025
Background
The opinion is a civil judgment in an action brought by Luis Morales against Brian Hilton. It does not identify the claims, factual allegations, or legal arguments. Instead, it states that the action is dismissed for the reasons given in a June 4, 2025, order. That order is not included in the provided text.
Rulings
The court dismissed the action.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the judgment would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to proceed without paying the required filing costs for an appeal. The court cited Coppedge v. United States for the standard that good faith exists when an appellant seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue.
Limits of the Provided Opinion
Because the June 4 order is not provided, the judgment itself does not show whether the dismissal was based on the merits, a procedural requirement, or another ground. The classification here treats the judgment as a procedural disposition because the provided text contains no merits analysis.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.