Brady v. Gregory Sheindlin, Esq.

• Court: District Court, S.D. New York
• Decided: February 25, 2021
• Docket: 1:20-cv-07047
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT be aed SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PPP Pee PW ps □□ JAMES BRADY, □□ pods Pb Pe: 2b5oca □ Plaintiff, -against- 20 CIVIL 7047 (LIL) JUDGMENT GREGORY SHEINDLIN and THE SHEINDLIN LAW FIRM, Defendants. ee eee K

It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Opinion and Order dated February 25, 2021, because Rooker-Feldman "implicates the federal courts’ matter jurisdiction, rather than the substantive merits of a case," the Court "lacks the power to dismiss prejudice." Charles v. Levitt, 716 F. App'x 18, 22 (2d Cir. 2017); see Katz v. Donna Karan Co., L.L.C., F.3d 114, 121 (2d Cir. 2017) ('[W]hen a case is dismissed for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction, Article HII deprives federal courts of the power to dismiss [the] case with prejudice.) (quoting Hernandez v. Realty Assocs., 182 F.3d 121, 123 (2d Cir. 1999). Accordingly, the Complaint is dismissed without The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that any appeal from the order would not be in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962); accordingly, this case is closed. New York, New York February 25, 2021

RUBY J. KRAJICK Clerk of Court BY: L Deputy Clerk