Curtis v. Rockland County Drug Task Force
- Philip Halpern
- 7:21-cv-04294
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Cyril Curtis v. Rockland County, Judge Halpern granted defendants’ dismissal motions, dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice, and closed the case.
Cyril Curtis and the defendants: Rockland County, Officer Phillip Fantasia, Officer John Casey, Officer Raymond Lund, Officer Michael Vigileti, and Investigator Joe Alvarez.
What happened
In Cyril Curtis v. Rockland County, the defendants asked the Southern District of New York to dismiss Curtis’s amended complaint. The judgment refers to a memorandum opinion and order dated October 28, 2022, but that opinion is not included here, so the specific claims and reasoning are not available.
The court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss. It dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice, meaning the complaint cannot be amended and filed again in this case because the court found amendment would be futile.
Judge Halpern’s court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Curtis permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The case was closed.
The detailed version
- Curtis v. Rockland County Drug Task Force · No. 7:21-cv-04294
- Philip Halpern
- Oct. 31, 2022
Disposition
The judgment states that, for the reasons given in the court’s memorandum opinion and order dated October 28, 2022, the defendants’ motions to dismiss were granted. The judgment does not reproduce the memorandum opinion, so it does not identify the specific claims or explain the legal grounds for dismissal.
The first amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice because the court determined that any amendment would be futile. This means the complaint cannot be amended again in this case.
Appeal-related rulings
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the memorandum opinion and order would not be taken in good faith. It also denied in forma pauperis status for purposes of an appeal, meaning Curtis was not permitted to pursue an appeal without paying the required filing fees. The judgment states that the case was closed.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.