Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 5, 2022

Pagan v. DOC OMH Agencies

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:22-cv-01352
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Pagan v. DOC OMH Agencies, Judge Swain dismissed the complaint because Pagan did not file the required amended complaint.

Who this affects

Jerry Pagan’s complaint was dismissed, and his filing-fee status was denied for purposes of an appeal. The defendants were not required to litigate the underlying claims in this order.

What happened

Pagan v. DOC OMH Agencies involved a complaint by Jerry Pagan against DOC OMH Agencies and the other defendants listed in the caption. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.

The court had ordered Pagan on April 18, 2022, to file an amended complaint within 60 days and warned that failing to do so would result in dismissal. Pagan did not file an amended complaint.

The court therefore dismissed the complaint under the statute governing dismissal of complaints filed without prepaying filing fees. Judge Laura Taylor Swain also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Pagan that filing-fee status for an appeal. The court directed that judgment issue.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Pagan v. DOC OMH Agencies · No. 1:22-cv-01352
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Aug. 5, 2022

Background

Jerry Pagan filed a complaint against DOC OMH Agencies and the other defendants identified in the caption. The complaint was filed without prepaying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

By an order dated April 18, 2022, the court directed Pagan to file an amended complaint within 60 days. That order stated that failure to comply would result in dismissal. Pagan did not file an amended complaint.

Ruling

The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The opinion does not address the merits of Pagan’s underlying claims; the dismissal was based on his failure to comply with the order requiring an amended complaint.

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied filing-fee status for purposes of an appeal. The court also ordered that judgment issue.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.