Ward v. Griffin
- 7:19-cv-04759
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Ward v. Griffin: the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, denied appeal-related fee-free status, and closed the case.
Carlos Ward’s case was closed after the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The judgment also denied fee-free status for an appeal.
What happened
In Ward v. Griffin, Carlos Ward sued Thomas Griffin, Albert Acrish, and Frederick N. Bernstein. The judgment does not state the claims or underlying events.
The judgment says the defendants moved to dismiss. It refers to a separate opinion and order dated June 29, 2020, but that document is not included here.
The court granted the motion to dismiss, found that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, denied fee-free status for an appeal, and closed the case. The judge is not identified in the provided text.
The detailed version
- Ward v. Griffin · No. 7:19-cv-04759
- June 29, 2020
Parties and record
The caption identifies Carlos Ward as the plaintiff and Thomas Griffin, Assistant Commissioner; Albert Acrish, Nurse Practitioner; and Frederick N. Bernstein, Medical Director, as the defendants. The provided document is a judgment and does not describe the claims, facts, or arguments.
Rulings
The judgment states that, for the reasons given in the court’s opinion and order dated June 29, 2020, the defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted. The opinion and order containing those reasons is not included in the provided text.
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 fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The judgment states that the case was closed.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it grants a motion to dismiss, and the provided judgment does not show that the court reached the merits of the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.