Castillo v. Snedeker

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJuly 8, 2024
Docket7:21-cv-11109
StatusUnknown

This text of Castillo v. Snedeker (Castillo v. Snedeker) 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
Castillo v. Snedeker, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------------X PEDRO CASTILLO,

Plaintiff, 21 CIVIL 11109 (PMH)

-v- JUDGMENT

C.O. ROBERT C. SNEDEKER, DONALD VENETTOZZI, C.H.O. KATHERINE HENLEY,

Defendants. ---------------------------------------------------------------------X

It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion & Order dated July 8, 2024, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claim against Snedeker regarding the false misbehavior report with prejudice. "Although courts generally grant a pro se plaintiff leave to amend a complaint to cure its shortcomings, leave to amend may be denied if the plaintiff has already been given an opportunity to amend but has failed to cure the complaints deficiencies." Amaker v. Gerbing, No. 17-CV-03520, 2022 WL 463312, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 15, 2022) (cleaned up). Moreover, leave to amend is not necessary when it would be futile." Reed v. Friedman Mgmt. Corp., 541 F. Appx 40, 41 (2d Cir. 2013) (citing Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000)). Having been given the opportunity to cure the Complaints deficiencies with respect to the remaining claim, which was specifically and fully identified in the Prior Order, and having failed to so, Plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against Snedeker is dismissed with prejudice because any amendment would be futile. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Opinion and Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status 1s 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 is closed. Dated: New York, New York July 8, 2024

DANIEL ORTIZ Acting Clerk of Court

BY: ER Deputy Clerk

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

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Cuoco v. Moritsugu
222 F.3d 99 (Second Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Castillo v. Snedeker, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/castillo-v-snedeker-nysd-2024.