Burch v. New York State
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:24-cv-01803
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Burch v. New York State, Judge Seibel dismissed the amended complaint, declined state-law jurisdiction, and denied fee-free appeal status.
The plaintiff and New York State; the plaintiff’s amended complaint was dismissed, judgment was entered for New York State, and the case was closed.
What happened
In Burch v. New York State, the court entered judgment for New York State after dismissing the plaintiff’s amended complaint. The judgment refers to an earlier May 1, 2024 order for the reasons supporting dismissal, but that order is not included here.
The court declined to hear any state-law claims the plaintiff may have intended to bring. It also called the plaintiff’s argument that vehicle laws do not apply when driving privately frivolous. The court said any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied the plaintiff’s request to appeal without paying filing fees.
Judge Cathy Seibel’s court entered judgment for the defendant and closed the case. The judgment does not state whether the dismissal permits or bars refiling.
The detailed version
- Burch v. New York State · No. 7:24-cv-01803
- Cathy Seibel
- May 1, 2024
Background
The judgment states that the court dismissed the plaintiff’s amended complaint for the reasons given in the court’s May 1, 2024 order. That underlying order is not included in the provided text, so the specific grounds for dismissing the complaint cannot be identified from this judgment alone.
State-Law Claims
The court stated that, to the extent the plaintiff intended to assert state-law claims, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. Supplemental jurisdiction is the authority to hear related state-law claims in a federal case. The judgment cites 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), which concerns declining that jurisdiction after federal claims have been dismissed.
Vehicle-Law Argument
The court held that the plaintiff’s argument that vehicle laws do not apply because the plaintiff was driving in a private capacity was frivolous. The judgment cites decisions from other federal courts in support of that conclusion.
Appeal and Disposition
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 the plaintiff’s status to pursue an appeal without paying filing fees. The court entered judgment for the defendant, and the case was closed. The judgment does not say that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.