Sabino v. Chairperson of Divi of NYS Parole
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-07765
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Sabino v. Chairperson of Divi of NYS Parole, Judge McMahon granted Sabino’s request to withdraw the action and denied appeal-related fee-free status.
Saul Sabino’s action was voluntarily dismissed at his request, and he was denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The defendants were not subjected to a ruling on the merits.
What happened
In Sabino v. Chairperson of Divi of NYS Parole, Saul Sabino asked the court to cancel or dismiss his action.
The court received Sabino’s request in a letter dated December 12, 2020, on January 4, 2021. The opinion does not decide the underlying issues in the action.
Judge Colleen McMahon granted the request and voluntarily dismissed the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), closing the case. She also denied fee-free status for any appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Sabino v. Chairperson of Divi of NYS Parole · No. 1:20-cv-07765
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 7, 2021
Background
Saul Sabino brought this action against the Chairperson of the Division of New York State Parole, the City of New York, and a person identified as “Joe/Jane Doe,” described in the caption as the author and signer of a parole warrant issued in May 2019. The opinion does not address the merits of Sabino’s claims.
Request and ruling
The court received Sabino’s December 12, 2020 letter on January 4, 2021. The letter asked the court to “cancel/dismiss” the action. The court granted that request and withdrew the action under Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court described the result as a voluntary dismissal and stated that the order closed the case. The opinion does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Appeal-related ruling
Judge Colleen McMahon certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. The court therefore denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk was directed to mail Sabino a copy of the order and record service on the docket.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court ended the case based on Sabino’s request and did not decide the underlying legal issues.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.