Amigon v. Luzon

S.D. New York

Amigon v. Luzon

DecidedJanuary 19, 2023

Docket7:21-cv-02029

StatusUnknown

This text of Amigon v. Luzon (Amigon v. Luzon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Amigon v. Luzon, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------X ANTHONY AMIGON,

Plaintiff, -against- 21 CIVIL 2029 (PMH)

JUDGMENT DYLAN J. LUZON, et al.,

Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------X It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated January 19, 2023, Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff's first three claims for relief, brought under federal law, are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff's remaining three claims for relief, brought under state law, are dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff cannot cure the defects in his federal claims for relief through further amendment. While "[d]istrict courts should frequently provide leave to amend before dismissing a pro se complaint... leave to amend is not necessary when it would be futile." Reed v. Friedman Mgmt. Corp., 541 F. App'x 40, 41 (2d Cir. 2013) (citing Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000)). Moreover, leave to amend may be denied if [as here] the plaintiff has already been given an opportunity to amend but has failed to cure the complaint's deficiencies." Barnett v. Rockland Cnty. Jail Matnice, No. 22-CV-02755, 2022 WL 1775716, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2022). Plaintiff has amended his Complaint twice already and had ample opportunity to amend any deficiencies. No further leave to amend is appropriate. Id. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the Order of Dismissal would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue); accordingly, the case 1s closed. Dated: New York, New York January 19, 2023

RUBY J. KRAJICK

Clerk of Court nN } BY: HK MANGCS Deputy Clerk

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------X ANTHONY AMIGON,

Plaintiff, -against- 21 CIVIL 2029 (PMH)

JUDGMENT DYLAN J. LUZON, et al.,

Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------X It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated January 19, 2023, Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff's first three claims for relief, brought under federal law, are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff's remaining three claims for relief, brought under state law, are dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff cannot cure the defects in his federal claims for relief through further amendment. While "[d]istrict courts should frequently provide leave to amend before dismissing a pro se complaint... leave to amend is not necessary when it would be futile." Reed v. Friedman Mgmt. Corp., 541 F. App'x 40, 41 (2d Cir. 2013) (citing Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000)). Moreover, leave to amend may be denied if [as here] the plaintiff has already been given an opportunity to amend but has failed to cure the complaint's deficiencies." Barnett v. Rockland Cnty. Jail Matnice, No. 22-CV-02755, 2022 WL 1775716, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2022). Plaintiff has amended his Complaint twice already and had ample opportunity to amend any deficiencies. No further leave to amend is appropriate. Id. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the Order of Dismissal would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue); accordingly, the case 1s closed. Dated: New York, New York January 19, 2023

RUBY J. KRAJICK

Clerk of Court nN } BY: HK MANGCS Deputy Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Amigon v. Luzon, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amigon-v-luzon-nysd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack