Kelsey v. Duwe
- Philip Halpern
- 7:21-cv-04298
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Kelsey v. Duwe, Judge Halpern granted defendants’ dismissal motion, dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice, and denied another motion as moot.
The ruling directly affected Michael N. Kelsey and the defendants, including Jeffrey Rutledge. It ended the case by dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice, denied the plaintiff’s motion concerning Duwe as moot, and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
What happened
Kelsey v. Duwe involved defendants’ motion to dismiss Michael N. Kelsey’s amended complaint and a separate motion concerning an earlier order that dismissed Duwe.
The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim. It denied the other motion as moot, meaning the court found no need to decide it. The court also denied fee-free appeal status and closed the case.
Judge Philip Halpern’s order said further amendment would be futile because Kelsey had already amended the complaint. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Kelsey v. Duwe · No. 7:21-cv-04298
- Philip Halpern
- June 10, 2022
Background
The judgment identifies Michael N. Kelsey as the plaintiff and Jeffrey Rutledge and others as defendants. It refers to a May 27, 2021 Order of Service that dismissed Duwe. The judgment itself does not provide the factual allegations or legal claims from the amended complaint; it incorporates the reasons stated in the court’s separate Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 10, 2022.
Rulings
The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It dismissed with prejudice the amended complaint for failure to state a claim. A dismissal for failure to state a claim means the court concluded that the complaint did not adequately allege a legally viable claim. The court stated that Kelsey had already had and used an opportunity to amend and that any further amendment would be futile.
The court also denied as moot the plaintiff’s motion concerning the May 27, 2021 Order of Service dismissing Duwe. The judgment does not identify that motion more specifically.
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 therefore denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal and stated that the case was closed.
Disposition
The defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted; the amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice; the plaintiff’s motion concerning the earlier dismissal of Duwe was denied as moot; and the case was closed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.