Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 7, 2025

Lord v. Northern Manhattan Rehab & Nursing Center

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-00243
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Lord v. Northern Manhattan Rehab & Nursing Center, Judge Swain dismissed the complaint without prejudice after Lord neither paid fees nor filed an IFP application.

Who this affects

Don Lord’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice because he did not pay the filing fee or submit an IFP application. The court also denied IFP status for any appeal.

What happened

In Lord v. Northern Manhattan Rehab & Nursing Center, the court had ordered Don Lord to either submit an application to proceed without paying filing fees or pay the $405 required to file a civil case. The order gave him 30 days to comply.

Lord did neither. The court therefore dismissed his complaint without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling. The court also directed the clerk to enter judgment.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Lord permission to appeal without paying fees. The court did not address the underlying claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Lord v. Northern Manhattan Rehab & Nursing Center · No. 1:25-cv-00243
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Mar. 7, 2025

Background

On January 14, 2025, the court ordered Don Lord to submit a completed application to proceed without paying the filing fee, commonly called an IFP application, or to pay the $405 filing fee required for a civil action. The court warned that failing to comply would result in dismissal of the complaint.

Court’s ruling

Lord did not file an IFP application and did not pay the filing fee. The court therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The opinion does not address the merits of Lord’s claims. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment.

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. The opinion cites the good-faith standard for an appeal involving a nonfrivolous issue.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.