Ojeda v. Villano
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-03941
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Ojeda v. Villano, Chief Judge McMahon dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction after Ojeda failed to amend.
Frances Ojeda's action against Stephen Villano was dismissed; the court also denied all pending motions as moot and denied permission to appeal without paying court fees.
What happened
In Ojeda v. Villano, the court had previously allowed Frances Ojeda 60 days to file an amended complaint.
Ojeda did not file an amended complaint within that period. The opinion does not explain the underlying claims or why the court had determined that an amended complaint was required.
The court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and denied all pending motions as moot. Chief Judge Colleen McMahon also denied permission to appeal without paying court fees because the court found that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Ojeda v. Villano · No. 1:19-cv-03941
- Colleen McMahon
- Dec. 8, 2019
Background
On September 20, 2019, the court granted Frances Ojeda permission to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The court's prior order stated that failing to do so would result in dismissal of the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Ojeda did not file an amended complaint.
Ruling
The court dismissed the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). The opinion does not describe the claims or otherwise explain the jurisdictional deficiency. The court denied all pending motions as moot.
Appeal-related ruling
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying the appellate filing fees. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail the order to Ojeda and record service on the docket.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.