Barton v. Clark

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MICHAEL ALEXANDERBARTON, Plaintiff, -against- 23 CIVIL 5827 (LGS) JUDGMENT DARCEL CLARK, et al., Defendants. eK It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Order dated October 19, 2023, the Complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted, for seeking monetary relief against a defendant who 1s immune from such relief, and as legally frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). Any claims brought on behalf of Divine Freedom Ministries are dismissed without prejudice. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962); accord Lastra v. City of New York, No. 16 Civ. 3088, 2018 WL 3207152, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 18, 2018). Dated: New York, New York October 20, 2023 RUBY J. KRAJICK Clerkof Court

eputy Clerk