Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 22, 2025

Pettus v. Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-07205
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In James Pettus v. Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Judge Swain dismissed the action and certified any appeal would not be taken in good faith.

Who this affects

The dismissal ended James Pettus’s action against Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe and Andrew Barnes. The provided judgment does not describe the underlying claims.

What happened

In James Pettus v. Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, the Southern District of New York entered a civil judgment in an action naming Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe and Andrew Barnes as defendants.

The judgment says the action was dismissed for reasons explained in an August 17, 2025, order. That order is not included here, so this opinion does not explain the basis for dismissal.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain also certified under federal law that any appeal from the judgment would not be taken in good faith. The judgment does not say that an appeal is barred.

The detailed version

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

Case
Pettus v. Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe · No. 1:25-cv-07205
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Oct. 22, 2025

Disposition

The court dismissed the action. It stated that the reasons for dismissal were provided in an August 17, 2025, order, but that order is not included in the opinion text provided here.

Appeal Certification

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the judgment would not be taken in good faith. The judgment does not state that an appeal is prohibited.

What the Opinion Does Not Establish

This judgment does not identify the claims James Pettus asserted, explain the legal basis for dismissal, or state whether the dismissal reached the merits. The court entered the judgment on October 22, 2025.

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.