Brady v. Gregory Sheindlin, Esq.
- Lewis Liman
- 1:20-cv-07047
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Brady v. Sheindlin, Judge Liman dismissed the complaint for lack of federal jurisdiction under Rooker-Feldman and denied fee-free appeal status.
James Brady’s complaint was dismissed for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal and closed the case.
What happened
In Brady v. Sheindlin, the court entered judgment concerning James Brady’s complaint against Gregory Sheindlin and The Sheindlin Law Firm. The available judgment says the court relied on an earlier opinion and order and dismissed the complaint because the Rooker-Feldman doctrine concerned federal subject-matter jurisdiction.
The judgment does not provide the underlying facts, claims, or the parties’ arguments. It also appears truncated after stating that the complaint was dismissed “without,” so the complete dismissal wording cannot be determined from the provided text.
Judge Lewis Liman’s court stated that it lacked power to dismiss the case with prejudice when the dismissal was for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal; the case was closed.
The detailed version
- Brady v. Gregory Sheindlin, Esq. · No. 1:20-cv-07047
- Lewis Liman
- Feb. 25, 2021
Background
The provided document is a judgment referring to an Opinion and Order dated February 25, 2021. It does not include the underlying facts, legal claims, or the parties’ positions.
Ruling
The judgment states that the complaint was dismissed because the Rooker-Feldman doctrine implicated the federal courts’ subject-matter jurisdiction. Subject-matter jurisdiction is a court’s legal authority to hear a case. The judgment further states that, when dismissal is based on lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction, the court lacks power to dismiss the case with prejudice.
The text is truncated after stating that the complaint was dismissed “without.” Therefore, the provided text does not establish the complete wording of the dismissal’s qualifier.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The judgment states that the case was closed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.