Suarez v. Otis Bantum Correctional Center
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-09664
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Suarez v. Otis Bantum Correctional Facility, Judge Swain dismissed the complaint without prejudice because Suarez did not pay fees or submit required forms.
Damian Suarez’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice because he did not pay the filing fees or submit the required forms. The court also denied fee-free status for an appeal.
What happened
In Suarez v. Otis Bantum Correctional Facility, et al., the court had ordered Damian Suarez to either submit an application to proceed without paying filing fees and a prisoner authorization form or pay the required $405 filing fees. The order gave him thirty days to comply.
Suarez did not submit the required forms or pay the fees. The court therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. The court did not address the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Suarez v. Otis Bantum Correctional Center · No. 1:24-cv-09664
- Laura Swain
- Feb. 18, 2025
Background
On December 20, 2024, the court ordered Damian Suarez, within thirty days, to submit a completed application to proceed without paying the filing fee and a prisoner authorization form, or to pay the $405 required to file a civil action. The order warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the complaint.
Court’s ruling
Suarez did not submit the application or prisoner authorization and did not pay the filing fees. Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.
The court 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 fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The order does not address the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.