Danielle Johnson v. Graphite Solutions Inc.
- Andrew Carter
- 1:25-cv-05978
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Danielle Johnson v. Graphite Solutions Inc., Judge Carter dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction and denied appeal fee-waiver status.
Danielle Johnson’s case was dismissed without prejudice because the court found that subject matter jurisdiction was not properly established. The court also denied fee-waiver status for an appeal. Graphite Solutions Inc. was the defendant.
What happened
In Danielle Johnson v. Graphite Solutions Inc., the court previously ordered Danielle Johnson to explain why the case should not be dismissed because the complaint did not properly establish the court’s authority to hear it.
The deadline to make that showing was October 6, 2025. The opinion states that the required showing was not made.
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. He also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Danielle Johnson v. Graphite Solutions Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-05978
- Andrew Carter
- Oct. 7, 2025
Background
On September 22, 2025, the court ordered Danielle Johnson to show cause—meaning to explain why the case should not be dismissed—for failure to properly plead subject matter jurisdiction. Subject matter jurisdiction is the court’s legal authority to hear a case. The court stated that a plaintiff asserting jurisdiction has the burden of proving that it exists by a preponderance of the evidence.
Analysis
The deadline for Johnson’s showing was October 6, 2025. The opinion states that the required showing was not made. The court therefore concluded that the case could not proceed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Disposition
The court dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Johnson fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Johnson the order and enter judgment in the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.