Buxbaum v. JP Morgan Chase
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-09388
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Buxbaum v. JP Morgan Chase, Judge Swain dismissed Michael Buxbaum’s complaint without prejudice because he neither paid filing fees nor requested a waiver.
Michael Buxbaum’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice; JP Morgan Chase was the named defendant. The order also concerns Buxbaum’s ability to waive filing fees for an appeal and potentially his future filings in this court.
What happened
In Buxbaum v. JP Morgan Chase, Michael Buxbaum filed the case without a lawyer. The court ordered him to submit a request to waive the filing fees or pay the required $405 within 30 days.
Buxbaum did neither. Instead, he filed 49 additional actions without paying the fees or asking for a waiver. The court warned that continued filings without payment or a waiver request could lead to an order requiring him to explain why he should not be barred from future filings that lacked those materials.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint without prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. The court also denied fee-waiver status for an appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Buxbaum v. JP Morgan Chase · No. 1:24-cv-09388
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 22, 2025
Background
Michael Buxbaum initiated this action without a lawyer on December 9, 2024. On December 20, 2024, the court ordered him, within 30 days, either to submit a completed application to proceed without paying the filing fee or to pay the $405 required to file a civil action. The order stated that failure to comply would result in dismissal.
Buxbaum did not submit the application or pay the filing fee. The order states that he instead filed 49 additional actions without paying the fees or requesting that they be waived.
Ruling
The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915. It warned that, if Buxbaum continued filing actions without paying the fees or requesting a waiver, the court might require him to show why he should not be barred from filing future actions that lacked an application or payment.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. The order did not address the underlying merits of Buxbaum’s claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.