Aaron v. Keyser
- Philip Halpern
- 7:21-cv-05258
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Aaron v. Keyser, Judge Halpern's judgment dismissed claims three, five, six, and eight with prejudice, and other claims without prejudice for standing or service problems.
Shavon Aaron's claims against Keyser and the other defendants: claims three, five, six, and eight were dismissed with prejudice, while claims one, two, four, seven, nine, ten, eleven, and twelve were dismissed without prejudice.
What happened
In Aaron v. Keyser, Shavon Aaron sued Keyser and other defendants. The judgment says the court had already explained its reasons in an Opinion and Order dated May 15, 2023, but that opinion is not included here.
The court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice as to claims three, five, six, and eight. It dismissed claims one, two, four, seven, nine, ten, eleven, and twelve without prejudice because of lack of standing or deficient service of process.
Judge Halpern's judgment also denied permission to file a second amended complaint, stating that further amendment would be futile. The court denied fee-free status for an appeal, certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and closed the case.
The detailed version
- Aaron v. Keyser · No. 7:21-cv-05258
- Philip Halpern
- May 15, 2023
Disposition
The judgment states that, for the reasons given in the court's Opinion and Order dated May 15, 2023, the motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice as to claims three, five, six, and eight. A dismissal with prejudice bars those claims from being refiled in the same action.
The motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice as to claims one, two, four, seven, nine, ten, eleven, and twelve. The judgment identifies lack of standing or deficient service of process as the grounds for dismissing those claims. A dismissal without prejudice does not itself bar refiling, although the judgment does not describe any further filing options or requirements.
Amendment and Appeal
The judgment states that Aaron had already amended the complaint once and had supplemented that amended pleading through the opposition to the motion. It says that any further amendment would be futile and denies permission to file a second amended complaint, even though Aaron had not requested permission to do so.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the Opinion and Order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The case was closed.
Scope of the Supplied Text
The supplied text is the judgment and does not include the Opinion and Order explaining the underlying allegations or the detailed reasoning for each claim. The classification is therefore based on the judgment's dismissal of the motion under a threshold pleading and procedural ruling.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.