Mitchells v. New York City
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-04743
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Mitchells v. New York City, Judge Swain dismissed the action and denied appeal fee-waiver status.
Johnathan Mitchells, whose action was dismissed and whose permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal was denied; New York City and New York State were the defendants.
What happened
In Johnathan Mitchells v. New York City, the court entered a civil judgment dismissing the action against New York City and New York State. The judgment says the dismissal was based on reasons given in a July 23, 2025 order, which is not included here.
The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Johnathan Mitchells permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal. The judgment does not explain the underlying basis for dismissal.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the judgment on July 24, 2025. Because the referenced July 23 order is not provided, the available text does not show whether the court reached the merits of the claims.
The detailed version
- Mitchells v. New York City · No. 1:25-cv-04743
- Laura Swain
- July 24, 2025
Action and disposition
The court entered a civil judgment dismissing the action brought by Johnathan Mitchells against New York City and New York State. The judgment states that the dismissal was entered “[f]or the reasons stated in the July 23, 2025, order.” That earlier order is not included in the provided text, so the basis for dismissal cannot be determined from this judgment alone.
Appeal-related ruling
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 permission to proceed without paying the required fees for purposes of an appeal. The judgment cites a decision explaining that good faith exists when an appellant seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue.
Classification
This is classified as a procedural order because the provided judgment dismisses the action without explaining whether the court decided the underlying claims. The dismissal’s precise legal basis may be stated in the unavailable July 23 order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.