Pearson v. New York State
- Philip Halpern
- 7:21-cv-05670
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Robert Pearson Jr. v. Sergeant Gesner #138, Judge Halpern’s court dismissed federal claims with prejudice and New York-law claims without prejudice.
Robert Pearson Jr. and the defendants, including Sergeant Gesner #138; the federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, while potential New York State-law claims were dismissed without prejudice.
What happened
Robert Pearson Jr. sued Sergeant Gesner #138 and other defendants. The judgment refers to Pearson’s complaint as pro se, but the supplied text does not describe the underlying claims.
The court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice as to Pearson’s federal-law claims and without prejudice as to claims he wishes to pursue under New York State law. The court also denied permission to file a second amended complaint because amendment would be futile.
Judge Halpern’s court denied permission to appeal without paying fees, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Pearson v. New York State · No. 7:21-cv-05670
- Philip Halpern
- May 16, 2022
Background
The judgment concerns Robert Pearson Jr.’s action against Sergeant Gesner #138 and other defendants. It states that Pearson proceeded with a pro se complaint, meaning he was not represented by a lawyer. The supplied judgment does not identify the specific federal or New York State claims.
Rulings
The court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice as to Pearson’s claims under federal law. It granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice as to claims Pearson wishes to pursue under New York State law.
The court denied leave to file a second amended complaint because it concluded that any amendment would be futile. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the court’s memorandum opinion and order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying the required fees and closed the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.