Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 3, 2025

Shabazz v. Paramount Global

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:24-cv-09891
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Shabazz v. Paramount Global, Chief Judge Swain dismissed the withdrawn petition and denied fee-free status for any appeal.

Who this affects

The petitioners, including Danny Amen Valentine Shabazz, and Paramount Global were affected by the voluntary dismissal and closure of the case. Any appeal would not qualify for permission to proceed without paying court fees.

What happened

In Shabazz v. Paramount Global, the court treated a submission intended for the Federal Communications Commission as a petition and opened a civil case. The petitioner later told the court that the submission was meant only for the Commission and asked to withdraw it.

The court voluntarily dismissed the petition under Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The court did not decide the petition’s underlying issues.

Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying court fees.

The detailed version

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

Case
Shabazz v. Paramount Global · No. 1:24-cv-09891
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Jan. 3, 2025

Background

The court received a submission on December 20, 2024, that was captioned for the Federal Communications Commission. The court treated the submission as a petition and opened a new civil action. On December 31, 2024, the court received a letter from Plaintiff stating that he wanted to withdraw the petition because it was intended to be filed only with the Commission, not with the district court.

Ruling

The court voluntarily dismissed the petition under Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the action. The opinion does not address the merits of the petition.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying court fees. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

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.