Franzese v. NYC Department of Corrections
- Alison Nathan
- 1:17-cv-03020
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Franzese v. City of New York, Judge Nathan granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissed the claim with prejudice, and closed the case.
Edward Franzese’s claim against the City of New York and the other defendants was dismissed with prejudice, and the case was closed. The judgment also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
In Franzese v. City of New York, the defendants moved to dismiss Edward Franzese’s claim. The judgment gives the reasons as those stated in a November 13, 2018 opinion and order, which is not included here.
The court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed Franzese’s claim with prejudice, meaning the judgment bars refiling that claim. The case was closed. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Franzese permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal.
Judge Alison Nathan is identified as the judge in the case information provided. The judgment itself is dated November 30, 2020 and was entered by the clerk.
The detailed version
- Franzese v. NYC Department of Corrections · No. 1:17-cv-03020
- Alison Nathan
- Nov. 30, 2020
Background
The judgment states that the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. It relies on the reasons stated in the court’s separate Opinion and Order dated November 13, 2018. That earlier opinion is not included in the provided text, so the specific claims and arguments are not described here.
Ruling
The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It stated that Franzese had been warned that declining to amend his pleadings in response to the defendants’ first motion to dismiss could waive his opportunity to use amendment to correct defects identified in the defendants’ briefing. The court therefore dismissed Franzese’s claim with prejudice and closed the case.
Appeal and filing fees
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal.
Effect
The judgment ended the case and barred refiling the dismissed claim. The provided judgment does not explain the underlying legal defects or the substance of the court’s November 13, 2018 reasoning.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.