Perry v. Hardy
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-03314
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Perry v. Hardy, Judge Swain dismissed Perry’s complaint after fee-free filing, declined state-law jurisdiction, and denied fee-free appeal status.
KAHREEMPERRY’s case was dismissed; the defendants were Glenn F. Hardy and Norman Williams. IFP status was also denied for any appeal.
What happened
Perry v. Hardy involved a complaint filed by KAHREEMPERRY against Glenn F. Hardy and Norman Williams. The plaintiff filed without paying the filing fee under a federal law allowing that procedure.
The judgment says the complaint was dismissed under the federal screening statute. It does not explain the underlying claims or the reasons for dismissal because those reasons were stated in a separate July 14, 2025, order. The court also declined to decide any state-law claims the plaintiff might be asserting.
The court entered judgment dismissing the case and found that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, so it denied fee-free status for an appeal. Judge Laura Swain is identified as the judge.
The detailed version
- Perry v. Hardy · No. 1:25-cv-03314
- Laura Swain
- July 15, 2025
Background
KAHREEMPERRY sued Glenn F. Hardy and Norman Williams. The complaint was filed without prepaying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a procedure commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis, or IFP. The judgment does not identify the claims or describe the parties’ factual allegations.
Ruling
The judgment states that, for the reasons given in the court’s July 14, 2025, order, the complaint was dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The judgment does not state the specific reason within that statute. It also says the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims the plaintiff may be asserting. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims along with federal claims.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. The clerk entered judgment dismissing the case. The judgment does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Unclear from the Provided Text
The separate July 14 order containing the reasons for dismissal was not provided. The judgment’s citation to the final subsection of § 1915(e)(2)(B) appears as “(i1),” so the precise subsection cannot be confirmed from the supplied text.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.