# Leon v. Town Board of the Town of Ramapo

> District Court, S.D. New York · March 6, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10349159

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. New York
- **Decided:** March 6, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10349159

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
VLADIMIR LEON,
Plaintiff,
-against- 22-CV-3965 (LTS)
TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF ORDER OF DISMISSAL
RAMAPO; EAST RAMAPO SCHOOLS
DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Defendants.
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge:
Plaintiff proceeds pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP). By order dated July 18, 2022, the
Court directed him to file an amended complaint within 60 days. (ECF 9.) That order specified
that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim on
which relief may be granted. Because Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint within 60 days
of the Court’s July 18, 2022, order, the Court dismissed the complaint by order and judgment
dated October 17, 2022, and entered on the court’s docket on October 19, 2022. (ECF 10, 11).
On October 29, 2022, Plaintiff filed a “motion for relief from the dismissal order,” in
which he alleged that he did not receive a copy of the order to amend in the mail and he asked
the Court to reopen the action. (ECF 12.) By order dated October 31, 2022, the Court granted
Plaintiff’s motion, directed the Clerk of Court to vacate the Court’s order of dismissal and
judgment and to reopen the action, and granted Plaintiff 60 days from the date of that order to
file an amended complaint.1 (ECF 13.)

1 The Court also reminded Plaintiff that he consented to receive electronic service of
documents in this action, and per the consent agreement, that he would no longer receive paper
copies of filings in this action. The Court confirmed that its order to amend was emailed to
Plaintiff at vleon35@yahoo, which is the email address that Plaintiff provided, and directed
Plaintiff to provide an updated email address if this address was incorrect.
On January 4, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time to file an amended
complaint, in which he requested an extension of “30 days or more.” (ECF 14, at 2.) By order
dated January 5, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion, and directed him to file an amended
complaint within 30 days of the date of that order. (ECF 15.) That order also specified that failure
to comply would result in dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief
may be granted. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. Accordingly, the complaint, filed
IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), is dismissed for failure to state a claim on which relief may be

granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
CONCLUSION
The Court dismisses this action for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
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 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).
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in this action.
SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2023
New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN
Chief United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10349159. Public record. Not legal advice.