Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 25, 2022

Edwards v. Mangion

Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Docket
7:20-cv-07370
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Motion to DismissCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Edwards v. Mangion, Judge Vincent Briccetti granted the motions to dismiss, denied fee-free appeal status, and closed the case.

Who this affects

The judgment affected plaintiff Clint Edwards and defendants Jeremy Mangion, M.D.; Nathaniel Rawicki, M.D.; Adam Shaner, M.D.; Ashlyn Morse, M.D.; William J. Walsh, M.D.; and Christopher Meltsakos, M.D. The motions to dismiss were granted, the case was closed, and fee-free appeal status was denied.

What happened

Edwards v. Mangion involved plaintiff Clint Edwards and six defendants identified in the judgment as doctors. The judgment does not describe the claims or the parties’ arguments.

The court’s judgment states that it had authority to hear the case under federal law and that the motions to dismiss were granted. The reasons were stated in a separate opinion and order dated April 25, 2022, which is not included here.

Judge Vincent Briccetti’s court also denied Edwards permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The case was closed.

The detailed version

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

Case
Edwards v. Mangion · No. 7:20-cv-07370
Judge
Vincent Briccetti
Date
Apr. 25, 2022

Background

The judgment names Clint Edwards as the plaintiff and Jeremy Mangion, M.D.; Nathaniel Rawicki, M.D.; Adam Shaner, M.D.; Ashlyn Morse, M.D.; William J. Walsh, M.D.; and Christopher Meltsakos, M.D. as defendants. The judgment itself does not state the claims, factual allegations, or arguments supporting the motions.

Ruling

The court stated that it had subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which generally concerns federal-question jurisdiction. It granted the motions to dismiss. The judgment refers to a separate Opinion and Order dated April 25, 2022, for the reasons supporting that ruling, but that document is not provided here.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The case was closed.

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.