Delgado v. The People of the State of New York
- Kimba Wood
- 1:25-cv-02189
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Delgado v. The People of the State of New York, Judge Wood dismissed Delgado’s complaint and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
Joleen Delgado’s federal complaint was dismissed. The People of the State of New York, Rockland County Court, and Hon. Kevin F. Russo were the named defendants.
What happened
In Delgado v. The People of the State of New York, Joleen Delgado sued New York, Rockland County Court, and Judge Kevin F. Russo. The court dismissed her complaint after allowing her to file without prepaying the filing fee.
The court said the complaint was barred by rules requiring it to refrain from interfering with certain state proceedings, the Eleventh Amendment, and judicial immunity. It also found that the complaint did not state a claim for which relief could be granted. The court declined to decide any state-law claims that Delgado may have been asserting.
Judge Wood’s court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Delgado permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The case was closed.
The detailed version
- Delgado v. The People of the State of New York · No. 1:25-cv-02189
- Kimba Wood
- June 10, 2025
Background
Joleen Delgado filed a complaint against The People of the State of New York, Rockland County Court, and Hon. Kevin F. Russo. The judgment states that she filed the complaint without prepaying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The judgment refers to the Court’s separate Order dated June 10, 2025 for the reasons supporting dismissal.
Ruling
The Court dismissed the complaint. It identified four grounds: the Younger abstention doctrine, which can require a federal court to refrain from interfering with certain ongoing state proceedings; the Eleventh Amendment; judicial immunity; and failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The judgment also states that the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Delgado may have been asserting under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
Appeal and case status
The Court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the Order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal, and the case was closed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.