Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 4, 2020

Pickett v. GM

Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Docket
1:20-cv-00075
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Pickett v. GM, Judge Ramos dismissed Pickett’s complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim after statutory screening.

Who this affects

Juanita Pickett’s case was dismissed with prejudice, and her request to proceed without prepaying fees on appeal was denied. GM and Motor Liquidation Co. were the defendants named in the case.

What happened

In Juanita Pickett v. GM and Motor Liquidation Co., Pickett filed a complaint and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The judgment does not describe the underlying claims.

The court dismissed Pickett’s case with prejudice for failure to state a claim under the federal screening statute. It also denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal and closed the case.

Judge Edgardo Ramos’s March 4, 2020 order provided the reasons for the judgment.

The detailed version

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

Case
Pickett v. GM · No. 1:20-cv-00075
Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Date
Mar. 4, 2020

Background

Juanita Pickett sued GM and Motor Liquidation Co. The judgment states that Pickett filed her complaint without prepaying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The judgment does not state what claims Pickett brought or provide facts about the dispute.

Ruling

The court dismissed Pickett’s case with prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The dismissal was issued under the screening provision for complaints filed without prepaying the filing fee, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). “With prejudice” means the judgment bars refiling the dismissed case.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Pickett permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal, and the case was closed.

Judge and Source of Reasons

The judgment is dated March 4, 2020 and states that the reasons for dismissal appear in the court’s order dated the same day. The provided text does not include that separate order. Judge Edgardo Ramos is identified in the case metadata.

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.