Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 6, 2023

Leon v. Town Board of the Town of Ramapo

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:22-cv-03965
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureMotion to DismissPro Se
In one sentence

In Leon v. Town Board, Judge Swain dismissed the action after Leon failed to file an amended complaint.

Who this affects

Vladimir Leon and the defendants, the Town Board of the Town of Ramapo and the East Ramapo Schools District Board of Education.

What happened

Leon v. Town Board of the Town of Ramapo involved Vladimir Leon’s case against the Town Board of the Town of Ramapo and the East Ramapo Schools District Board of Education. Leon was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee.

The court ordered Leon to file an amended complaint and warned that failing to do so would lead to dismissal. After an earlier dismissal was reopened, the court granted Leon additional time to amend, but he still did not file an amended complaint.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the action for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The court also denied Leon permission to appeal without paying the filing fee and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.

The detailed version

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

Case
Leon v. Town Board of the Town of Ramapo · No. 1:22-cv-03965
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Mar. 6, 2023

Background

Vladimir Leon sued the Town Board of the Town of Ramapo and the East Ramapo Schools District Board of Education. The opinion states that Leon proceeded without a lawyer and sought to proceed without paying the filing fee under the federal law governing cases filed without such payment.

Procedural History

On July 18, 2022, the court ordered Leon to file an amended complaint within 60 days and warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Leon did not file an amended complaint, so the court dismissed the complaint by order and judgment dated October 17, 2022, and entered on the docket on October 19, 2022.

Leon then moved for relief from the dismissal order, stating that he had not received a mailed copy of the order directing him to amend and asking the court to reopen the action. On October 31, 2022, the court granted that motion, vacated the dismissal order and judgment, reopened the action, and gave Leon 60 days to file an amended complaint. The court also reminded him that he had agreed to receive documents electronically and stated that the order to amend had been emailed to the address he provided.

On January 4, 2023, Leon requested an additional 30 days or more to file an amended complaint. On January 5, 2023, the court granted the request and gave him 30 days to file the amended complaint, again warning that failure to comply would result in dismissal. Leon did not file one.

Ruling

The court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). This was a threshold ruling about the adequacy of the complaint, rather than a decision on the underlying claims.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Leon permission to appeal without paying the filing fee. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.