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

Pettus v. O'Hagan Wolfe

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-05253
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Pettus v. O’Hagan Wolfe, Judge Swain dismissed the action and denied fee-free status for any appeal.

Who this affects

James Pettus’s action was dismissed, affecting Pettus and defendants Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Jane, and John Doe. Any appeal would not receive fee-free status under the court’s ruling.

What happened

Pettus v. O’Hagan Wolfe involved James Pettus’s action against Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Jane, and John Doe. The opinion does not describe the claims or the parties’ arguments.

The court said the action was dismissed for the reasons given in a June 26, 2025, order. That earlier order is not included here, so this opinion does not explain the basis for dismissal.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain entered judgment dismissing the action. The court also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.

The detailed version

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

Case
Pettus v. O'Hagan Wolfe · No. 1:25-cv-05253
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
July 9, 2025

Background

James Pettus brought this action against Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Jane, and John Doe. The judgment refers to a June 26, 2025, order, but that order is not included in the provided opinion. The available text therefore does not state what claims Pettus brought or why the action was dismissed.

Ruling

The court dismissed the action for the reasons stated in the June 26 order. The judgment does not say whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

The court also 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 status allowing an appeal without prepaying filing fees. This denial applied to an appeal from the judgment.

Disposition

The action was dismissed. Fee-free status for an appeal was denied. The provided opinion does not state the underlying basis for the dismissal.

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.