Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 10, 2024

Wilburn v. Galloway

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:23-cv-10513
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Wilburn v. Galloway, Judge Swain denied Wilburn’s service motion as moot after dismissing the action and denied appeal fee status.

Who this affects

Andre Wilburn’s request for service by the United States Marshals Service was denied as moot, the action remained closed, and permission to appeal without prepaying fees was denied.

What happened

In Wilburn v. Galloway, Andre Wilburn brought the action without a lawyer. The court had dismissed the action and entered judgment on January 8, 2024.

Wilburn asked the court to direct the United States Marshals Service to serve the defendants. Because the action had already been dismissed, the court found the request moot, meaning it no longer required a ruling.

The court denied Wilburn’s motion and said the action would remain closed. Judge Swain also denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

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

Case
Wilburn v. Galloway · No. 1:23-cv-10513
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Jan. 10, 2024

Background

Andre Wilburn brought the action without a lawyer. On January 8, 2024, the court dismissed the action, and the Clerk of Court entered judgment. The opinion does not explain the basis for that dismissal.

Motion concerning service

The court received Wilburn’s motion on January 8 asking it to direct the United States Marshals Service to serve the defendants. The motion was entered on the docket on January 9.

Ruling

Because the action had already been dismissed, the court denied Wilburn’s motion as moot. The court stated that the action remains closed.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. This order did not explain the basis for the earlier dismissal of the action.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.