Williams v. Sullivan
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:23-cv-08303
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Williams v. Sullivan, Judge Engelmayer dismissed the action without prejudice because Williams did not comply with a prior order and denied fee-free appeal status.
Joint. Williams, whose action was dismissed without prejudice and whose request to appeal without prepaying filing fees was denied.
What happened
In Williams v. Sullivan, the court entered judgment after Williams failed to comply with an order dated July 30, 2020. The judgment states that the action was dismissed without prejudice for that failure.
The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Williams permission to appeal without paying the required fees. The case was closed.
Judge Engelmayer is identified as the judge, although the judgment itself was entered by the clerk, Ruby J. Krajick. The opinion refers to an October 2, 2023 court order for the reasons for dismissal, but that order is not included in the provided text.
The detailed version
- Williams v. Sullivan · No. 1:23-cv-08303
- Paul Engelmayer
- Oct. 2, 2023
Background
The provided document is a judgment in an action brought by Joint. Williams against Richard J. Sullivan and other defendants. It states that the court’s reasons appear in an October 2, 2023 order, but that order is not included in the provided text.
Ruling
The court dismissed the action without prejudice because Williams failed to comply with a July 30, 2020 order. “Without prejudice” means the judgment does not itself bar a later refiling, although the provided judgment does not explain any conditions for refiling.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without prepaying filing fees. The judgment states that the case was closed.
Disposition
The action was dismissed without prejudice. Permission to appeal without prepaying filing fees was denied. The judgment was dated October 2, 2023, and entered by Clerk of Court Ruby J. Krajick.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.