Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 14, 2025

Wilson v. Otis Bantum Correctional Center

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:24-cv-09621
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Wilson v. Otis Bantum Correctional Facility, Judge Swain dismissed the complaint without prejudice because Wilson neither submitted required forms nor paid filing fees.

Who this affects

Trayvon Wilson's complaint against Otis Bantum Correctional Facility and the other named defendants was dismissed without prejudice. The order also denied Wilson permission to appeal without paying fees.

What happened

In Wilson v. Otis Bantum Correctional Facility, the court had ordered Trayvon Wilson to submit an application to proceed without paying filing fees or pay the required filing fees within 30 days.

Wilson did not submit the required application and prisoner authorization, and he did not pay the $405 filing fee. The opinion does not address the claims in the complaint.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint without prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. She also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying fees.

The detailed version

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

Case
Wilson v. Otis Bantum Correctional Center · No. 1:24-cv-09621
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Mar. 14, 2025

Background

On December 18, 2024, the court directed Trayvon Wilson to do one of two things within 30 days: submit a completed application to proceed without paying filing fees, commonly called an IFP application, along with prisoner authorization, or pay the $405 in filing fees required for a civil action in the Southern District of New York. The court warned that failing to comply would result in dismissal of the complaint.

Ruling

The court found that Wilson had not submitted the IFP application and prisoner authorization and had not paid the filing fees. It therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915. The opinion did not decide the underlying claims.

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for an appeal. It also directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.

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.