Richardson v. Otis Bantum Correctional Facility
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-09649
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Richardson v. Otis Bantum Correctional Facility, Judge Swain dismissed the complaint without prejudice because Richardson neither paid filing fees nor submitted required forms.
Ty k enda Richardson’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice. The court also denied permission to proceed without paying fees on appeal and directed entry of judgment.
What happened
In Richardson v. Otis Bantum Correctional Facility, the court had ordered Richardson to submit an application to proceed without paying the filing fee or pay the required $405 in fees within 30 days.
Richardson did not submit the required application and prisoner authorization, and did not pay the filing fees.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint without prejudice, directed the Clerk to enter judgment, and denied permission to proceed without paying fees on appeal because the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Richardson v. Otis Bantum Correctional Facility · No. 1:24-cv-09649
- Laura Swain
- Feb. 26, 2025
Background
The court’s December 20, 2024, order required Ty k enda Richardson to submit a completed application to proceed without paying the filing fee, along with prisoner authorization, or to pay the $405 filing fee required to bring a civil action. The order warned that failure to comply within 30 days would result in dismissal.
What the Court Decided
Richardson did not submit the application and prisoner authorization and did not pay the filing fees. The court therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915. A dismissal without prejudice does not bar refiling, although the opinion does not discuss any potential refiling requirements.
Other Orders
Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. The court therefore denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.
Date discrepancy
The opinion is dated February 20, 2025. The supplied case information lists a filing date of February 26, 2025.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.