Bey v. Carillo
- Kimba Wood
- 1:25-cv-02099
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Bey v. Carillo, Judge Wood dismissed the complaint as frivolous, denied an attempted removal, remanded the case, and denied appeal fee-waiver status.
Jeremy Jacob Morales Bey, whose complaint was dismissed as frivolous; his request to move state-court criminal proceedings to federal court was denied, the case was remanded to state court, and fee-waiver status for an appeal was denied.
What happened
In Bey v. Carillo, the judgment says the court dismissed Jeremy Jacob Morales Bey’s complaint after it was filed without paying the filing fee, finding it frivolous. The judgment refers to reasons in a June 10, 2025 order, which is not included here.
The court also denied as improper any request to move Bey’s state-court criminal proceedings into federal court and remanded the case to state court. It further denied fee-waiver status for an appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Judge Kimba Wood’s court closed the case on June 11, 2025. The judgment does not describe the complaint’s underlying allegations or explain the June 10 order’s reasoning.
The detailed version
- Bey v. Carillo · No. 1:25-cv-02099
- Kimba Wood
- June 11, 2025
What the judgment says
The plaintiff is Jeremy Jacob Morales Bey. The defendants are Officer Carrillo, Badge #973983; Lieutenant Bautista; New York Police Department Precinct #020; and the Department of Motor Vehicles Traffic Violations Division.
The judgment states that the court dismissed the complaint as frivolous under the statute governing complaints filed by people who proceed without paying the filing fee, 28 U.S.C. § 1915. It cites § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), which authorizes dismissal of a frivolous complaint during that screening process. The judgment refers to the reasons stated in the court’s June 10, 2025 order, but that order is not included in the provided text.
Attempted removal of state proceedings
To the extent Bey sought to move his state-court criminal proceedings to federal court, the court denied that request as improper. The case was remanded to the state court.
Appeal-related ruling and disposition
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-waiver status for purposes of an appeal. The judgment states that the case was closed.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it dismissed the complaint during statutory screening as frivolous and addressed the attempted removal of state proceedings without deciding the underlying claims on their merits.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.