Jones v. Westchester County Department of Corrections
- Philip Halpern
- 7:20-cv-08542
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Jones v. Westchester County Department of Corrections, Judge Halpern granted defendants’ dismissal motion, dismissed Jones’s claims, and closed the case.
Steven A. Jones, Jr.’s claims were dismissed with prejudice. Westchester County and the other defendants obtained dismissal of the claims against them; Defendant Stoddard was separately dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Any asserted state-law claims were not heard under supplemental jurisdiction, and Jones was denied fee-free appeal status.
What happened
In Jones v. Westchester County Department of Corrections, Steven A. Jones, Jr. sued Westchester County and other defendants. The judgment states that Jones had previously been given an opportunity to correct problems in his original complaints but failed to do so in his amended complaint.
The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed Jones’s claims with prejudice because further amendment would be futile. It also dismissed Defendant Stoddard under the cited prisoner-screening statute, declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims, and denied fee-free appeal status because an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Judge Philip Halpern’s May 4, 2022 judgment closed the case. The supplied judgment does not include the separate memorandum explaining the specific reasons for dismissal.
The detailed version
- Jones v. Westchester County Department of Corrections · No. 7:20-cv-08542
- Philip Halpern
- May 4, 2022
Background
The judgment concerns claims brought by Steven A. Jones, Jr. against Westchester County and other defendants. It refers to an amended complaint and states that Jones had previously been given an opportunity to correct deficiencies in his original complaints.
Rulings
The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed Jones’s claims. The judgment states that the claims in the amended complaint were dismissed with prejudice because another amendment would be futile. A dismissal with prejudice bars those claims from being refiled in the same case.
The judgment separately states that Defendant Stoddard was dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a provision allowing dismissal of certain claims filed by a person proceeding without paying filing fees. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—its authority to hear related state-law claims—insofar as any such claims were asserted.
Appeal and Case Status
The court certified that any appeal from the memorandum opinion and order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Jones permission to appeal without paying the required filing fees and closed the case. Judge Philip Halpern is identified in the supplied case information; the judgment itself is signed by the court clerk and refers to a separate memorandum opinion and order dated May 4, 2022.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.