Buxbaum v. Rosano
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-00606
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
Buxbaum v. Rosano: Judge Swain dismissed the action without prejudice because Buxbaum neither paid filing fees nor submitted an IFP application.
Michael Buxbaum's action against Vincenzo Rosano was dismissed without prejudice. Buxbaum was also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
In Buxbaum v. Rosano, the court ordered Michael Buxbaum to submit an application to proceed without paying filing fees or to pay the $405 required filing fee within 30 days.
Buxbaum did neither. The court therefore dismissed the action without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment dismissing the action for failure to comply with the filing requirement.
The detailed version
- Buxbaum v. Rosano · No. 1:25-cv-00606
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 5, 2025
Background
On January 28, 2025, the court directed Plaintiff Michael Buxbaum to do one of two things within 30 days: submit a completed application to proceed without paying filing fees, known as an application to proceed in forma pauperis, or pay the $405 filing fee required for a civil action in the court. The order warned that failing to comply would result in dismissal.
Ruling
Buxbaum did not submit the application or pay the filing fee. The court therefore dismissed the action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915. The order also states that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denies permission to appeal without paying fees. Finally, the court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment dismissing the action.
Effect of the Order
The dismissal was based on Buxbaum's failure to satisfy the court's filing requirement, not on a decision about the underlying dispute. Because the court used the words "without prejudice," the order did not bar refiling. The opinion is dated March 4, 2025, while the supplied case information lists March 5, 2025, as the filing date.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.