Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 8, 2023

Hill v. NYC Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:22-cv-07203
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Hill v. NYC Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, Judge Swain dismissed the complaint after Hill failed to file an ordered amended complaint.

Who this affects

Vivian Hill's complaint was dismissed; the opinion does not describe the underlying claims.

What happened

In Hill v. NYC Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, the court had ordered Vivian Hill to file an amended complaint within 60 days and warned that failing to do so would lead to dismissal. Hill instead filed an appeal, which the appeals court dismissed because no final order had been issued.

Because Hill did not file an amended complaint, the court dismissed the complaint under the federal statute governing cases filed without prepaying filing fees. The court also denied Hill permission to appeal without prepaying the fee, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and directed the clerk to enter judgment.

Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain issued the dismissal on August 8, 2023. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or explain which specific statutory screening grounds applied.

The detailed version

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

Case
Hill v. NYC Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene · No. 1:22-cv-07203
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Aug. 8, 2023

Background

The defendants named in the caption were NYC Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene and Mental Hygiene Legal Services. By an order dated October 17, 2022, the court directed Vivian Hill to file an amended complaint within 60 days. That order warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal.

On February 9, 2023, Hill filed a notice of interlocutory appeal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed that appeal because it lacked jurisdiction: the district court had not yet issued a final order.

Ruling

Because Hill had not filed an amended complaint, the district court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)-(iii). The opinion states that the complaint had been filed without prepaying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), but it does not explain which specific conduct or claims corresponded to subsections (ii) and (iii).

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without prepaying the filing fee and directed the clerk to enter judgment. The court did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

Judge

Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order on August 8, 2023, in New York, New York.

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.