Sullivan County Jail Administrator and Medical Dept. v. Plaintiff
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-04243
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Plaintiff v. Sullivan County Jail Administrator and Medical Dept., Judge Swain dismissed Plaintiff’s amended complaint and denied appeal-related fee status.
Plaintiff’s amended complaint was dismissed, any possible state-law claims were left undecided under supplemental jurisdiction, and Plaintiff was denied permission to appeal without prepaying the filing fee. The case was closed.
What happened
In Plaintiff v. Sullivan County Jail Administrator and Medical Dept., the court dismissed Plaintiff’s amended complaint after screening a lawsuit filed without the required filing fee. The judgment says the complaint failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted.
The court also declined to decide any state-law claims that Plaintiff may have included. It further ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Plaintiff permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.
Judge Swain’s judgment closed the case. It relies on an August 4, 2025 order for the reasons for dismissal, but that order is not included in the provided text.
The detailed version
- Sullivan County Jail Administrator and Medical Dept. v. Plaintiff · No. 1:24-cv-04243
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 8, 2025
Background
The judgment concerns Plaintiff’s amended complaint against Sullivan County Jail Administrator and Medical Dept., et al. The opinion text does not describe the factual allegations or the claims in the amended complaint. It states that the complaint was filed without prepaying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The judgment refers to the court’s August 4, 2025 order for the reasons supporting the result, but that order is not included here.
Ruling
The court dismissed Plaintiff’s amended complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). This was a screening dismissal, meaning the court evaluated whether the complaint stated a legally viable claim before the case proceeded. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims Plaintiff may have been asserting under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the August 4 order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Plaintiff permission to appeal without prepaying the filing fee. The judgment states that the case is closed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.