Sister E. Jones-Bey v. Chen
- Laura Swain
- 1:21-cv-06142
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Sister E. Jones-Bey v. Chen, Judge Swain dismissed the complaint, denied a detention-related writ request, and declined state-law jurisdiction.
Sister E. Jones-Bey’s complaint was dismissed; her request for a writ of habeas corpus was denied; and any state-law claims she may have been asserting were not heard under supplemental jurisdiction. The named defendants were described as immune from at least some requested relief.
What happened
In Sister E. Jones-Bey v. Chen, the court entered judgment dismissing the complaint. The judgment says the complaint did not state a claim for relief and sought relief from defendants protected by immunity.
The court also denied Sister E. Jones-Bey’s request for a writ of habeas corpus, meaning a court order concerning detention. It declined to decide any state-law claims and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain issued the July 6, 2022 judgment. The judgment relies on orders dated September 17, 2021, and July 6, 2022, but the provided text does not explain the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Sister E. Jones-Bey v. Chen · No. 1:21-cv-06142
- Laura Swain
- July 6, 2022
Background
The provided document is a civil judgment following earlier orders dated September 17, 2021, and July 6, 2022. It does not describe the factual allegations or identify the specific claims in the complaint.
Rulings
The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). It stated three grounds: failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted; seeking relief against defendants who are immune from that relief; and, consequently, frivolousness. The judgment cites the court of appeals’ statement that a claim dismissed on absolute judicial-immunity grounds is frivolous for purposes of the statute governing proceedings without required filing fees.
The court denied Plaintiff’s request for a writ of habeas corpus. It also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning jurisdiction over any related state-law claims Plaintiff may have been asserting. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the judgment would not be taken in good faith.
Disposition and limits of the record
The complaint was dismissed, the request for a writ was denied, and the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. The opinion text supplied does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice and does not provide additional facts about the parties’ claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.