Mott v. Thomas James Schell
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-05450
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Ricky Mott v. Thomas James Schell, Judge Swain dismissed the action, but this judgment does not explain the reasons stated in the earlier order.
Ricky Mott’s action against Thomas James Schell was dismissed. The judgment also denied Ricky Mott permission to proceed without paying appeal filing fees.
What happened
In Ricky Mott v. Thomas James Schell, the court entered judgment dismissing the action. The judgment refers to an October 7, 2025, order for the reasons, but that order is not included here.
The court also said that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Ricky Mott permission to proceed without paying the appeal filing fee. The judgment does not explain the basis for that determination.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the judgment on October 9, 2025. Because the referenced October 7 order is not provided, this judgment alone does not show whether the dismissal reached the underlying legal issues or rested on a threshold ground.
The detailed version
- Mott v. Thomas James Schell · No. 1:25-cv-05450
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 9, 2025
Disposition
The court entered a civil judgment dismissing Ricky Mott’s action against Thomas James Schell. The judgment states that the dismissal was based on reasons given in an October 7, 2025, order, but that order is not part of the provided opinion.
Appeal-Filing Status
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the judgment would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to proceed without paying the required filing fees for an appeal. The judgment cites the rule that good faith exists when an appellant seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue.
What the Provided Text Does Not Show
The provided judgment does not identify the legal or factual basis for dismissal. It therefore does not establish whether the court decided the merits of the dispute or dismissed the action on a procedural or other ground.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.