Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 22, 2025

Owner/Agent@DudeofNewYork v. U.S. Government

Docket
1:25-cv-06007
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Owner/Agent@DudeofNewYork v. U.S. Government, the court dismissed the fee-waived complaint and denied fee-waived appeal status.

Who this affects

The dismissal affected Owner/Agent@DudeofNewYork. The judgment also warned of possible future filing restrictions and denied fee-waived status for an appeal.

What happened

In Owner/Agent@DudeofNewYork v. U.S. Government, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the listed government defendants and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee.

The judgment says the complaint was dismissed for the reasons given in the court’s August 21, 2025, order. That order is not included here, so the specific reasons for dismissal cannot be determined from this judgment.

The court also warned that further meritless lawsuits could lead to restrictions on future fee-waived filings. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waived status for an appeal.

The detailed version

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

Case
Owner/Agent@DudeofNewYork v. U.S. Government · No. 1:25-cv-06007
Date
Aug. 22, 2025

Background

Owner/Agent@DudeofNewYork was the plaintiff. The defendants were identified in the caption as the U.S. Government State/Province (.gov) and several states or state-related government entities. The plaintiff filed the complaint without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a procedure commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis.

Ruling

The judgment states that, for the reasons given in the court’s August 21, 2025, order, the complaint was dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(iii) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). The August 21 order is not included in the provided text, so this judgment does not reveal which specific grounds supported the dismissal. The judgment does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

The court warned that further meritless litigation in the district could lead to an order barring the plaintiff from filing new actions without paying the filing fee unless the plaintiff first obtained the court’s permission. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waived status for purposes of an appeal. The document was dated August 22, 2025, and signed by the clerk of court through a deputy clerk; no judge’s name appears in the provided judgment.

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.