Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 17, 2025

Coleman Bey v. Administration for Children's Services

Judge
Kimba Wood
Docket
1:24-cv-08096
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Coleman Bey v. Administration for Children’s Services, Judge Kimba Wood dismissed the complaint as frivolous and legally insufficient after filing-fee screening.

Who this affects

Bashiri Coleman Bey’s action was dismissed. The judgment also denied him permission to appeal without paying the filing fee; the Administration for Children’s Services and Jeff Hanhauser were the named defendants.

What happened

Bashiri Coleman Bey sued the Administration for Children’s Services and Jeff Hanhauser in the Southern District of New York. The opinion does not describe the allegations or claims because it relies on an earlier order dated July 15, 2025.

The court said Bey filed the complaint without paying the filing fee under a federal statute that permits this in some cases. That statute required the court to dismiss a complaint that was frivolous or did not state a claim for relief.

The action was dismissed, and the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. Judge Kimba Wood’s court also denied Bey permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.

The detailed version

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

Case
Coleman Bey v. Administration for Children's Services · No. 1:24-cv-08096
Judge
Kimba Wood
Date
July 17, 2025

Background

Bashiri Coleman Bey brought this action against the Administration for Children’s Services and Jeff Hanhauser. The judgment states that the court was dismissing the action for reasons explained in a July 15, 2025, order, but that earlier order is not included in the provided text. The available text therefore does not identify the factual allegations or the legal claims in the complaint.

Screening and ruling

Bey filed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), which permits a litigant who meets the statutory requirements to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), stating that it was frivolous and failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. This was a screening disposition rather than a decision resolving the underlying factual allegations.

Appeal-related ruling

The court certified that any appeal from the judgment would not be taken in good faith and denied filing-fee waiver status for purposes of an appeal. The judgment was dated July 17, 2025, and the court record identifies Judge Kimba Wood as the judge. The provided judgment does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

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.