Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 6, 2025

Hayes v. Larry/Landlord

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:24-cv-04102
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Hayes v. Larry/Landlord, Judge Swain barred future fee-free filings about specified events without permission and directed judgment dismissing the action.

Who this affects

Henry C. Hayes III is barred from filing future civil actions in the Southern District of New York without paying the filing fee when they arise from the specified events, unless he first obtains the court’s permission. The order also affects any future filing by him that violates the restriction, which the court says will be dismissed.

What happened

In Hayes v. Larry/Landlord, Henry C. Hayes III filed the action without a lawyer. The court had already dismissed the action and ordered Hayes to explain why it should not restrict future fee-free civil filings related to this case and two earlier related cases.

Hayes did not respond to that order. The court therefore barred him from filing future civil actions in this court without paying the filing fee if they arise from the events described in the three cases, unless he first obtains permission. A request for permission must include the proposed complaint and a copy of this order.

The court also warned that further frivolous or otherwise nonmeritorious filings could lead to additional sanctions, denied fee-free status for an appeal, and directed the Clerk to enter a judgment dismissing this action for the reasons given in the earlier dismissal order. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Hayes v. Larry/Landlord · No. 1:24-cv-04102
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Jan. 6, 2025

Background

Henry C. Hayes III filed this action without a lawyer. In an October 25, 2024 order, the court dismissed the action and directed Hayes to show why it should not restrict his ability to file future civil actions in this court without paying the filing fee when those actions arose from events alleged in this case and in two earlier related proceedings, docketed as Nos. 1:23-CV-3705 (LTS) and 1:23-CV-9713 (LTS). The court warned that failing to respond or failing to show good cause could result in a filing restriction.

Hayes filed no response to the October 25 order.

Ruling

The court imposed the filing restriction under 28 U.S.C. § 1651. Hayes is barred from filing any future civil action in this court without paying the filing fee if the action arises from the events alleged in the three identified proceedings, unless he first obtains the court’s permission. To seek permission, he must file a motion with the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit and attach both his proposed complaint and a copy of this order. If he files such an action without first filing a motion for permission, the court will dismiss it for failure to comply with the order.

The court also warned that continued submission of frivolous or otherwise nonmeritorious documents or civil actions could lead to additional sanctions, including monetary penalties or another filing restriction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. Finally, it directed the Clerk of Court to enter a judgment dismissing this action for the reasons stated in the October 25, 2024 order.

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.