Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 1, 2024

Roberts v. Narayan Pharmacy

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:24-cv-01317
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

Roberts v. Narayan Pharmacy: Judge Swain dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and denied appeal fee-waiver status.

Who this affects

Jazmine I. Roberts’s complaint was dismissed, her request to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal was denied, and the case was closed. Narayan Pharmacy was the defendant in the closed case.

What happened

In Roberts v. Narayan Pharmacy, Jazmine I. Roberts filed a complaint and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The judgment does not describe the underlying claims or the parties’ arguments.

The court dismissed the complaint because it lacked authority to hear the case. The judgment also stated that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Roberts permission to proceed without paying the appeal fee; the case was closed.

Judge Laura Swain is identified in the supplied case information. The judgment itself refers to an April 29, 2024 order for the reasons for dismissal and is dated May 1, 2024.

The detailed version

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

Case
Roberts v. Narayan Pharmacy · No. 1:24-cv-01317
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
May 1, 2024

Background

Jazmine I. Roberts sued Narayan Pharmacy. The judgment states that Roberts’s complaint was filed without prepaying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The judgment does not state what claims Roberts brought, the parties’ factual positions, or why the court concluded that federal subject-matter jurisdiction was absent. It refers to a separate court order dated April 29, 2024, for the reasons supporting the dismissal.

Ruling

The court dismissed Roberts’s complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). Subject-matter jurisdiction is the court’s legal authority to hear a type of dispute. The judgment also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. As a result, the court denied Roberts permission to appeal without paying the filing fee, and the case was closed.

What the Judgment Does Not Decide

Because the provided judgment resolves the case for lack of jurisdiction and does not include the April 29 order, it does not show that the court reached the merits of Roberts’s claims. The judgment is signed by Ruby J. Krajick, Clerk of Court, by a deputy clerk; the supplied case information identifies Laura Swain as the judge.

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.