Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 25, 2025

Lovelady v. Otis Bantum Correctional Facility

Full caption

Juan Lovelady v. Otis Bantum Correctional Facility, Rikers Island; Warden D. Mebane; City of New York; Mayor Eric Adams; Commissioner Louis Molina

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:24-cv-09646
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

Lovelady v. Otis Bantum Correctional Facility: Judge Swain dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim and denied fee-waiver status for appeal.

Who this affects

Juan Lovelady’s amended complaint was dismissed, the case was closed, and permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal was denied.

What happened

In Juan Lovelady v. Otis Bantum Correctional Facility, the court dismissed Lovelady’s amended complaint because it did not state a claim for which relief could be granted. The judgment does not describe the allegations or explain the reasons from the earlier opinion that supported the dismissal.

The complaint had been filed without paying the filing fee under a statute allowing qualifying litigants to do so. The court also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied that fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal. The case was closed.

Judge Laura Swain’s court entered the judgment on September 25, 2025, based on the court’s Opinion and Order dated July 29, 2025.

The detailed version

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

Case
Lovelady v. Otis Bantum Correctional Facility · No. 1:24-cv-09646
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Sept. 25, 2025

Disposition

The court dismissed Juan Lovelady’s amended complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The judgment cites 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which requires dismissal during court screening when a complaint filed without the filing fee does not state a legally sufficient claim. The judgment does not provide the allegations, the claims, or the reasoning from the court’s earlier Opinion and Order dated July 29, 2025.

Appeal-related ruling

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for purposes of an appeal. The judgment states that the case is closed.

Judge and date

Judge Laura Swain is identified in the supplied case information. The judgment is dated September 25, 2025, in the Southern District of New York. The document is signed by the clerk of court on behalf of the court.

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.