Mees v. City of New York
- Alison Nathan
- 1:19-cv-07346
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Mees v. City of New York, Judge Nathan granted dismissal because some claims lacked jurisdiction and the rest were untimely, and denied a related request.
Heleen Mees’s claims were dismissed: the claims directed at her state-court judgment for lack of jurisdiction and the remaining claims as untimely. The court also denied her request concerning the defendants’ briefs and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
In Mees v. City of New York, the court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over claims directed at Heleen Mees’s state-court judgment and that her other claims were untimely.
The court therefore granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. After the dismissal, Mees asked the court to require the defendants to refile their briefs using her requested honorific; the court denied that request.
Judge Nathan’s court also found that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The case was closed.
The detailed version
- Mees v. City of New York · No. 1:19-cv-07346
- Alison Nathan
- Mar. 26, 2021
Background
The judgment states that the court’s reasons were provided in an Opinion and Order dated March 25, 2021. The judgment does not describe the underlying claims in detail. It states that Heleen Mees brought claims against the City of New York and other defendants.
Rulings
The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over Mees’s claims directed at her state-court judgment. It also concluded that her remaining claims were untimely, meaning they were filed too late under the applicable time limit. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Mees separately filed a letter motion stating that she had asked the defendants to refer to her by her honorific in their briefing and that they refused. She asked the court to require the defendants to refile their briefs with that correction. Because the court had resolved the motion to dismiss, it denied the letter motion.
Appeal and Case Status
Judge Nathan’s court found 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 appeal without paying filing fees. The judgment states that the case was closed.
Disposition
The motion to dismiss was granted. The letter motion concerning the defendants’ briefs was denied. Permission to appeal without paying filing fees was denied.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.