Simon v. City of New York Department of Corrections
- 1:18-cv-12063
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Simon v. City of New York Department of Corrections, the court dismissed claims against two defendants without prejudice and denied appeal fee-waiver status.
Milton Simon and the claims against “C.O. John Doe (Clinc-Post)” and “Doctor Devour of Medical.” The case was closed, and Simon was denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.
What happened
In Simon v. City of New York Department of Corrections, Milton Simon sued the City of New York Department of Corrections and others. The judgment addressed claims against “C.O. John Doe (Clinc-Post)” and “Doctor Devour of Medical.”
The court dismissed Simon’s complaint without prejudice as to those two defendants and closed the case. The judgment states that the dismissal was based on reasons given in an August 26, 2022 order, which is not included in the provided text.
The court also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Simon permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. The judgment was entered on August 31, 2022; no judge is named in the provided opinion text.
The detailed version
- Simon v. City of New York Department of Corrections · No. 1:18-cv-12063
- Aug. 31, 2022
Disposition
The judgment states that, for the reasons given in the Court’s August 26, 2022 order, Milton Simon’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice as to Defendants “C.O. John Doe (Clinc-Post)” and “Doctor Devour of Medical.” The case was closed.
Appeal-related ruling
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 permission to proceed without paying the required fees for purposes of an appeal.
Limits of the provided text
The August 26 order explaining the reasons for dismissal is not included. The provided judgment therefore does not identify the legal basis for the dismissal or describe the allegations in the complaint beyond the parties named in the judgment.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.