Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 9, 2022

Thomas v. John Doe

Judge
Philip Halpern
Docket
7:20-cv-07520
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

WilliamThomas v. John Morley: Judge Halpern granted defendants’ motions to dismiss, dismissed Fullerton, and closed the case.

Who this affects

WilliamThomas’s case was closed; the defendants’ motions to dismiss were granted, and Fullerton was dismissed under the cited screening statute.

What happened

In WilliamThomas v. John Morley, et al., the Southern District of New York entered judgment based on a February 9, 2022 memorandum opinion and order. The excerpt does not explain the claims or the parties’ arguments.

The court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissed Fullerton under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The case was closed. The court also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.

Judge Philip Halpern is identified in the supplied case information. The judgment itself bears the name of Ruby J. Krajick, and the excerpt does not explain that difference.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Thomas v. John Doe · No. 7:20-cv-07520
Judge
Philip Halpern
Date
Feb. 9, 2022

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss. It also stated that “Fullerton is DISMISSED” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), and ordered that the case be closed.

Appeal-fee ruling

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the memorandum opinion and order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying the required filing fees.

What the excerpt does not show

The provided judgment refers to a memorandum opinion and order dated February 9, 2022, but does not include the court’s reasoning, the claims, or the parties’ arguments. It also does not explain why the judgment refers to “Fullerton,” a name not appearing in the caption excerpt. The supplied case information identifies Judge Philip Halpern, while the judgment bears the name Ruby J. Krajick.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.