Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 30, 2019

Castillo v. Weissberg

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:19-cv-07959
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Castillo v. Weissberg, Judge McMahon dismissed the complaint after Johanna Castillo failed to file the required amended complaint.

Who this affects

Johanna Castillo's complaint was dismissed. The order also declined supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims she may have asserted and denied her permission to appeal without prepaying the filing fee.

What happened

In Castillo v. Weissberg, the court had ordered Johanna Castillo to file an amended complaint within 60 days and warned that failing to do so would lead to dismissal.

Castillo did not file an amended complaint. The court therefore dismissed her complaint, which had been filed without prepaying the filing fee, under the federal statute governing such cases. The court also declined to hear any state-law claims she may have asserted.

Judge Colleen McMahon directed the clerk to mail the order to Castillo and record service. Judge McMahon also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Castillo permission to appeal without prepaying the fee.

The detailed version

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

Case
Castillo v. Weissberg · No. 1:19-cv-07959
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Dec. 30, 2019

Background

On October 16, 2019, the court ordered Johanna Castillo to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The order warned that failing to comply would result in dismissal of the complaint. Castillo did not file an amended complaint.

Ruling

The court dismissed Castillo's complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i1), as cited in the opinion. The complaint had been filed without prepaying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims, over any state-law claims Castillo may have been asserting.

The clerk was directed to mail a copy of the order to Castillo and note service on the docket. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying the filing fee.

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.