Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 9, 2025

Mallgren v. UNITED STATES

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-05062
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Mallgren v. UNITED STATES, Judge Swain dismissed the action and denied fee-free appeal status; the opinion gives no further reason.

Who this affects

Anthony Brian Mallgren’s action against the United States and other defendants was dismissed, and he was denied in forma pauperis status for any appeal.

What happened

In Mallgren v. UNITED STATES, Anthony Brian Mallgren sued the United States and other defendants. The judgment refers to an earlier July 1, 2025, order but does not describe the claims or the reasons for dismissal.

The court dismissed the action. The judgment does not say whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Mallgren permission to appeal without paying the required court fees. The judgment does not explain the basis for the underlying dismissal.

The detailed version

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

Case
Mallgren v. UNITED STATES · No. 1:25-cv-05062
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
July 9, 2025

Background

Anthony Brian Mallgren brought this action against the United States and other defendants. The judgment provides no description of the claims, the parties’ arguments, or the court’s reasoning. It states that the action was dismissed for the reasons given in a July 1, 2025, order, but that order is not included in the supplied text.

Ruling

The court dismissed the action. The judgment does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the judgment would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied in forma pauperis status for an appeal, meaning Mallgren could not appeal without paying the required court fees under that status. The judgment cites Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962).

Limits of the supplied opinion

Because the July 1 order is not provided, the basis for dismissal and whether the court reached the merits cannot be determined from this judgment alone. The classification here treats the supplied judgment as a procedural dismissal without a stated merits ruling.

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.