Renee Williams v. The Brooklyn Defenders, et al.
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-07648
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Williams v. The Brooklyn Defenders: Judge Swain dismissed the action and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Renee Williams, whose action was dismissed and whose request to appeal without paying filing fees was denied.
What happened
In Renee Williams v. The Brooklyn Defenders, et al., the court entered a judgment dismissing the action. The judgment does not explain the underlying dispute.
The judgment says the dismissal was based on reasons stated in an October 20, 2025, order, but that order is not included in the provided opinion text. The basis for dismissal therefore cannot be determined from this document alone.
The court also found that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Williams permission to appeal without paying filing fees. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the judgment on October 22, 2025.
The detailed version
- Renee Williams v. The Brooklyn Defenders, et al. · No. 1:25-cv-07648
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 22, 2025
Disposition
The court entered a civil judgment dismissing the action. It stated that the dismissal was for the reasons given in an October 20, 2025, order. That earlier order is not included in the provided text, so this judgment does not reveal why the action was dismissed or whether the court reached the merits of any claim.
Appeal-related ruling
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court certified that any appeal from the judgment would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied in forma pauperis status—that is, permission to appeal without paying the required fees—for purposes of an appeal. The court cited Coppedge v. United States for the proposition that an appellant acts in good faith when seeking review of a nonfrivolous issue.
Judge
Judge Laura Taylor Swain, Chief United States District Judge, signed the judgment. The provided text does not identify the parties’ claims, the reasons for dismissal, or whether the dismissal was based on a procedural or merits determination.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.