Antrobus v. New York City
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-03338
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Antrobus v. New York City; New York State, Judge Swain denied Antrobus’s fee-free filing request, dismissed his claims without prejudice, and dismissed Guzman’s claims for lack of jurisdiction.
Andre Antrobus’s ability to file without paying the filing fee while in custody is restricted under the three-strikes rule, and his claims were dismissed without prejudice. Brian Guzman’s claims were dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also denied fee-free filing status for an appeal.
What happened
The judgment in Andre Antrobus v. New York City; New York State states that the court acted based on an order dated September 15, 2025. The judgment does not describe the underlying claims.
The court denied Andre Antrobus’s request to file without paying the filing fee and dismissed his claims without prejudice under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes rule. While Antrobus is in custody, he cannot file another case without paying the fee unless he faces an immediate threat of serious physical injury. The court also dismissed Brian Guzman’s claims without prejudice because it lacked authority to hear them.
Judge Laura Swain’s judgment also says that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denies fee-free filing status for an appeal. The judgment is dated September 16, 2025.
The detailed version
- Antrobus v. New York City · No. 1:25-cv-03338
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 16, 2025
Disposition
The judgment states that, for the reasons in the court’s September 15, 2025 Order, the court:
- denied Andre Antrobus’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee; - dismissed Antrobus’s claims without prejudice under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s “three-strikes” rule, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); - continued to bar Antrobus from filing a future action without paying the filing fee while he is in custody, unless he is under an imminent threat of serious physical injury; - dismissed Brian Guzman’s claims without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning the court determined it lacked legal authority to hear those claims, citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3); and - certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore denied fee-free filing status for an appeal.
What the Judgment Does Not Say
The judgment does not explain the underlying claims, identify the reasons for Antrobus’s three qualifying prior cases, or provide the court’s reasoning for finding that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Guzman’s claims. Those details appear to be in the September 15 Order, which is not included in the provided text.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.