Shomo v. State of New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision…
Shomo v. State of New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and it's Executives
- Philip Halpern
- 7:21-cv-00128
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Shomo v. State Corrections, Judge Halpern dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim and closed the case.
Jose J. Shomo and the State of New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and other defendants.
What happened
In Shomo v. State of New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, the defendants moved to dismiss Jose J. Shomo’s complaint. The judgment identifies the complaint as one filed without a lawyer.
The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint with prejudice because it failed to state a claim. The court said amendment would be futile, so it did not allow Shomo to amend the complaint.
Judge Philip Halpern’s judgment also stated that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Shomo v. State of New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision… · No. 7:21-cv-00128
- Philip Halpern
- May 4, 2022
Background
The judgment concerns Jose J. Shomo’s complaint against the State of New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and other defendants. The judgment refers to Shomo’s filing as a complaint filed without a lawyer. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss.
Ruling
The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim, meaning the complaint could not proceed in its current form and could not be refiled after this dismissal. The judgment states that allowing an amendment was unnecessary because any amendment would be futile.
Appeal and Case Status
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the memorandum opinion and order would not be taken in good faith. It also denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee and stated that Shomo was not otherwise entitled to proceed without paying that fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The case was closed. The judgment does not include the underlying memorandum opinion and order, so it does not explain why the complaint failed to state a claim.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.