Opinion
20 CIVIL 8542 (PMH)
05-04-2022
STEVEN A. JONES, JR., Plaintiff, v. WESTCHESTER COUNTY, et al., Defendants.
JUDGMENT
It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated May 4, 2022, Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED and Plaintiffs claims against them are DISMISSED. Defendant Stoddard is DISMISSED under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state law claims to the extent any such claims are asserted. 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 complaint's deficiencies." Michel v. Orange Cty., New York, No. 21-CV-09406, 2022 WL 103581, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2022). Moreover, leave to amend is not necessary when it would be futile." Reed v. Friedman Mgt. 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 original complaints various deficiencies, and having failed to do so, the Court has dismissed the claims alleged in the Amended Complaint with prejudice as any amendment would be futile. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the Memorandum Opinion and Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis 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 is closed.