Brathwaite v. Leticia
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-01364
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Brathwaite v. Leticia, Chief Judge Swain dismissed the Section 1983 claims after Brathwaite failed to file an amended complaint.
Mitchell Brathwaite’s Section 1983 claims were dismissed; any state-law claims he may have been asserting were not heard by the federal court.
What happened
In Brathwaite v. Leticia, Mitchell Brathwaite brought claims under a federal civil-rights law against Judge Wanda Leticia. He was representing himself and had permission to proceed without paying filing fees.
The court had previously dismissed his complaint for failing to state a legally valid claim and because of immunity, but allowed him 30 days to file an amended complaint. Brathwaite did not file one or otherwise contact the court. The court therefore dismissed his federal claims and declined to hear any state-law claims he may have been asserting.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain also denied fee-free status for an appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment.
The detailed version
- Brathwaite v. Leticia · No. 1:23-cv-01364
- Laura Swain
- June 26, 2023
Background
Mitchell Brathwaite proceeded without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees. He filed a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows certain civil-rights claims against government actors. The defendant is identified in the caption as Judge Wanda Leticia.
In an order dated May 9, 2023, the court dismissed Brathwaite’s complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted and on immunity grounds. The court gave him permission to file an amended complaint within 30 days and stated that the action would be dismissed if he did not do so. Brathwaite did not file an amended complaint or otherwise communicate with the court.
Ruling
The court dismissed Brathwaite’s Section 1983 claims for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted and on immunity grounds. The court declined under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims, over any state-law claims Brathwaite may have been asserting.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.