Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 2, 2024

Panfil v. Han

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:24-cv-01546
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Panfil v. Han, Judge Swain dismissed the complaint without prejudice because Panfil neither paid $405 nor submitted an IFP application.

Who this affects

Dorin Panfil's complaint was dismissed without prejudice because he did not submit the required fee-waiver application or pay the $405 filing fee. His request to proceed without paying fees on appeal was also denied.

What happened

Panfil v. Han involved a court order requiring Dorin Panfil either to submit a completed request to proceed without paying filing fees or to pay the $405 required to file a civil case. The court gave Panfil 30 days to comply.

Panfil did not submit the request or pay the fees. The court therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice, meaning the dismissal does not itself bar refiling.

Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain also denied Panfil permission to proceed without paying fees on appeal, after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Panfil v. Han · No. 1:24-cv-01546
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
July 2, 2024

Background

In an order dated May 17, 2024, the court directed Dorin Panfil to submit a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis (without paying the filing fee) within 30 days, or to pay the $405 filing fee required for a civil action. The order warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the complaint.

Panfil did not file an application or pay the required fees.

Ruling

The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied in forma pauperis status for purposes of an appeal.

Other Action

The court directed the clerk to enter judgment. The order did not address the underlying claims in the complaint.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.