DIAZ v. Montefiore Moses Division Hospital Emergency Department
- Kimba Wood
- 1:24-cv-08607
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Diaz v. Moses Division Hospital Emergency Department, Judge Wood dismissed Diaz’s complaint and denied fee-free appeal status.
Noel Diaz’s complaint was dismissed, and his ability to appeal without prepaying the appellate filing fee was denied. The named defendants were not required to defend the claims further based on the judgment described here.
What happened
In Noel Diaz v. Moses Division Hospital Emergency Department, the court entered judgment after an earlier order dismissed Diaz’s complaint.
Diaz had been allowed to file without paying the filing fee. The court dismissed the complaint for failing to state a legally sufficient claim.
Judge Kimba Wood’s judgment also said any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Diaz permission to appeal without paying the fee.
The detailed version
- DIAZ v. Montefiore Moses Division Hospital Emergency Department · No. 1:24-cv-08607
- Kimba Wood
- July 22, 2025
Background
The judgment concerns a complaint filed by Noel Diaz against Moses Division Hospital Emergency Department, Jon Doe, Jane Doe, and James Doe. The complaint was filed without prepaying the filing fee, a status commonly called proceeding without paying court fees.
Ruling
The judgment states that, for the reasons given in the court’s July 21, 2025 Order, the court dismissed Diaz’s complaint for failure to state a claim under the federal statute governing screening of complaints filed without prepaying fees, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(1), as cited in the judgment.
The court also certified that any appeal from the July 21 Order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Diaz permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal. Judge Kimba Wood is identified as the judge in the provided case information; the judgment itself was entered by the clerk of court.
Scope of the Provided Opinion
The provided text is the July 22 judgment and refers to the July 21 Order for the reasons supporting dismissal. The July 21 Order and the complaint’s allegations are not included, so the judgment does not provide further details about Diaz’s claims or the court’s reasoning.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.