Tripathy v. Feuz
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:21-cv-05349
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Tripathy v. Feuz, Judge Briccetti dismissed claims against two defendant groups, denied one dismissal motion, granted transfer, and denied appeal fee-waiver status.
Sanjay Tripathy; the Fishkill Defendants and Albany Defendants, against whom all claims were dismissed; and Dr. Ryan Brotz and the DOCCS Defendants, as to whom transfer was granted.
What happened
In Tripathy v. Feuz, Sanjay Tripathy sued Maria Feuz and other named defendants. The judgment refers to Fishkill Defendants, Albany Defendants, Dr. Ryan Brotz, and DOCCS Defendants, but it does not explain those groupings.
The court granted dismissal of Tripathy’s requests for court declarations and orders against the Fishkill Defendants. It also granted dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) as to the Fishkill and Albany Defendants, denied dismissal under Rule 12(b)(3), and granted transfer of the action as against Dr. Ryan Brotz and the DOCCS Defendants. All claims against the Fishkill and Albany Defendants were dismissed, and the action was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York.
Judge Vincent Briccetti’s court also stated that an appeal would not be considered to have been taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The judgment says these rulings were based on an Opinion and Order dated October 24, 2022.
The detailed version
- Tripathy v. Feuz · No. 7:21-cv-05349
- Vincent Briccetti
- Oct. 26, 2022
Background
Sanjay Tripathy brought this action against Maria Feuz, Jacqueline Reid, Luis Gonzalez, John Wood, Edward Burnett, Jeff McKoy, Tina M. Stanford, Michelle Harrington, Kathy Hochul, Ryan Brotz, Brian McCallister, and Annucci. The judgment refers to some defendants as the Fishkill Defendants, the Albany Defendants, and the DOCCS Defendants, but the provided text does not identify which named defendants belong to each group.
The judgment states that the rulings were made for the reasons in the court’s Opinion and Order dated October 24, 2022. That Opinion and Order is not included in the provided text.
Rulings
The court ruled as follows:
- The motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), which concerns the court’s power to hear a claim, was granted as to claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against the Fishkill Defendants. - The motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim, was granted as to the Fishkill Defendants and the Albany Defendants. - The motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(3), which concerns improper venue, was denied. - The motion to transfer the action as against Dr. Ryan Brotz and the DOCCS Defendants was granted. - All claims against the Fishkill Defendants and the Albany Defendants were dismissed. - The action was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the judgment primarily resolves motions to dismiss, venue, transfer, and appeal-fee status rather than deciding the underlying legal claims on their merits. Judge Vincent Briccetti is identified in the case information supplied with the opinion; the judgment itself is signed by the court clerk.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.