Barton v. Clark
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:23-cv-05827
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Barton v. Clark: Judge Schofield dismissed the complaint, dismissed Divine Freedom Ministries’ claims without prejudice, and denied appeal-related fee-free status.
Michael AlexanderBarton, the defendants named in the complaint, and Divine Freedom Ministries as to any claims brought on its behalf.
What happened
In Barton v. Clark, the court entered judgment dismissing Michael AlexanderBarton’s complaint. The judgment says the complaint failed to state a claim, sought money from an immune defendant, and was legally frivolous.
Claims brought on behalf of Divine Freedom Ministries were dismissed without prejudice, meaning they were not permanently barred by that judgment. The court also declined to decide any related state-law claims.
Judge Lorna Schofield’s court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. The opinion text provided does not include the court’s October 19 order explaining the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Barton v. Clark · No. 1:23-cv-05827
- Lorna Schofield
- Oct. 20, 2023
Background
The court entered a judgment concerning the complaint filed by Michael AlexanderBarton against Darcel Clark and other defendants. The judgment relies on the court’s separate order dated October 19, 2023, which is not included in the provided text. As a result, the specific factual allegations and legal claims are not stated here.
Rulings
The court dismissed the complaint for three stated reasons: it failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted; it sought monetary relief from a defendant who was immune from that relief; and it was legally frivolous. The judgment cites the prisoner-screening statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) and (2).
The court separately dismissed without prejudice any claims brought on behalf of Divine Freedom Ministries. “Without prejudice” means the judgment did not permanently bar those claims. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority over related state-law claims, and therefore did not decide those state-law claims in this judgment. It cited 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
Appeal-related ruling
The court 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 fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The judgment was dated October 20, 2023, and was entered by the clerk of court.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.