Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 27, 2025

Batson v. Otis Bantum Correctional Center

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:24-cv-09619
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Batson v. Otis Bantum Correctional Facility, Chief Judge Swain dismissed the complaint without prejudice after Batson failed to pay fees or submit required forms.

Who this affects

Danny Batson's complaint was dismissed without prejudice for failure to submit the required filing forms or pay the filing fees. The order did not address the underlying claims against the defendants.

What happened

In Batson v. Otis Bantum Correctional Facility, Danny Batson was ordered to submit forms requesting permission to proceed without paying the filing fee and authorizing deductions from a prisoner account, or to pay the required $405 in filing fees.

The court received notice that its order was undeliverable. Batson did not submit the forms, pay the fees, or otherwise contact the court. The court therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling.

Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain also denied permission to appeal without paying fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The clerk was directed to enter judgment.

The detailed version

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

Case
Batson v. Otis Bantum Correctional Center · No. 1:24-cv-09619
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Jan. 27, 2025

Background

On December 18, 2024, the court ordered Danny Batson to do one of two things within thirty days: submit a completed application to proceed without prepaying the filing fee and a prisoner authorization form, or pay the $405 filing fees required for a civil action. The order warned that failing to comply would result in dismissal of the complaint.

On January 15, 2025, the court received notice from the U.S. Postal Service that the December 18 order could not be delivered. The opinion states that Batson did not submit the required forms, pay the fees, or otherwise communicate with the court.

Ruling

The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915. The order therefore did not bar Batson from refiling. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying fees. The clerk was directed to enter judgment.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.