Dupigny v. United States of America
- Alison Nathan
- 1:20-cv-10281
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Dupigny v. United States, Judge Nathan dismissed Hubert Dupigny’s complaint without prejudice to a pending action and denied appeal fee-waiver status.
Hubert Dupigny’s complaint against the United States of America and the other named defendants was dismissed without prejudice, and Dupigny was denied fee-waiver status for an appeal in this case.
What happened
In Dupigny v. United States of America, Hubert Dupigny sued the United States and other defendants. The judgment does not describe the claims or the reasons for dismissal, referring instead to a separate dismissal order.
The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice to Dupigny’s pending action in case number 20-CV-5346 and closed this case. It also denied fee-waiver status for any appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Judge Alison Nathan is identified in the case information supplied with the opinion. The judgment is dated December 11, 2020, and states the case was dismissed for the reasons in the separate dismissal order.
The detailed version
- Dupigny v. United States of America · No. 1:20-cv-10281
- Alison Nathan
- Dec. 11, 2020
Background
Hubert Dupigny was the plaintiff, and the caption names the United States of America and other defendants. The judgment itself does not state the claims or provide the factual background. It refers to a separate “Order of Dismissal” dated December 11, 2020.
Ruling
The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice to Dupigny’s pending action under case number 20-CV-5346. The case was therefore closed. “Without prejudice” means the judgment did not state that the complaint could not be pursued again, although the judgment specifically tied the dismissal to the pending action.
Appeal status
The court 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-waiver status for purposes of an appeal. The judgment cited a Supreme Court decision explaining that good faith exists when an appellant seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue.
Effect
This judgment disposed of case number 20 CIVIL 10281 (AJN), while preserving the stated connection to Dupigny’s pending action under case number 20-CV-5346. The opinion provided does not explain what claims remain in that other action or what the separate dismissal order decided.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.