Curry v. Kim
- Philip Halpern
- 7:22-cv-04127
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Curry v. Kim, Judge Halpern granted dismissal with prejudice, denied leave to amend, and denied appeal fee-waiver status.
Jerome Curry’s action against Kyoung S. Kim and A. Simpson was dismissed with prejudice; Curry was also denied leave to file a second amended complaint and permission to appeal without paying court fees.
What happened
In Curry v. Kim, the court ruled on a motion to dismiss Jerome Curry’s case against Kyoung S. Kim and A. Simpson. The judgment states that the motion was granted with prejudice as to Kim and Simpson.
The court also denied permission to file a second amended complaint, finding that another amendment would be futile because Curry had already amended once. The case was closed.
Judge Halpern’s judgment further states that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Curry permission to appeal without paying the required fees. The supplied judgment does not explain the underlying claims or the reasons for dismissal.
The detailed version
- Curry v. Kim · No. 7:22-cv-04127
- Philip Halpern
- Nov. 14, 2023
Rulings
The court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice as to Defendants Kyoung S. Kim and A. Simpson. “With prejudice” means the dismissal bars refiling the dismissed claims in this action.
The court denied leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. It stated that Jerome Curry had already amended his complaint once and that any further amendment would be futile. The judgment does not describe the claims or explain the underlying reasons for finding amendment futile; it incorporates the reasons stated in a separate Opinion and Order dated November 14, 2023.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying court fees for an appeal. The case was closed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.