Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 3, 2025

Jackson v. Department of Corrections

Full caption

Stephanie Lea Jackson v. Department of Corrections; Almadovar; Cruz; Miller; McKenzie

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-07146
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

Jackson v. Department of Corrections was dismissed, and Judge Swain denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.

Who this affects

Stephanie Lea Jackson’s action was dismissed, and permission to appeal without paying filing fees was denied. The judgment does not state the specific basis for dismissal.

What happened

In Stephanie Lea Jackson v. Department of Corrections, the court dismissed the action for the reasons given in an October 31, 2025, order. The provided judgment does not explain those reasons.

The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Jackson permission to appeal without paying filing fees.

Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the civil judgment on November 3, 2025.

The detailed version

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

Case
Jackson v. Department of Corrections · No. 1:25-cv-07146
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Nov. 3, 2025

Disposition

The court dismissed the action. The judgment states that the reasons were provided in an October 31, 2025, order, but that order is not included in the supplied opinion text. The judgment therefore does not reveal the basis for dismissal.

Appeal Filing Status

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the judgment would not be taken in good faith. It denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The judgment cites Coppedge v. United States for the principle that good faith exists when an appellant seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue.

Judge and Date

Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain entered the civil judgment on November 3, 2025, in New York, New York.

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.