Gilmore v. Combs
- James Oetken
- 1:24-cv-08440
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Gilmore v. Combs, Judge Oetken updated Gilmore’s mailing information and denied fee-free appeal status.
Dewitt Gilmore, the self-represented plaintiff, whose mailing information was addressed and whose request to appeal without paying filing fees was denied.
What happened
In Gilmore v. Combs, the self-represented plaintiff’s mailed court documents were returned, so the court reviewed his recent filings for a current address.
The court said it would update the plaintiff’s mailing address unless he objected and supplied another address by March 31, 2025. It also encouraged him to agree to receive documents electronically.
Judge J. Paul Oetken certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied the plaintiff’s ability to appeal without paying court fees. The Clerk was directed to mail the order and email a copy to the plaintiff.
The detailed version
- Gilmore v. Combs · No. 1:24-cv-08440
- James Oetken
- Mar. 17, 2025
Background Dewitt Gilmore, who is representing himself, filed the action on November 3, 2024. When the case began, the Clerk’s Office docketed a standing order requiring self-represented litigants to keep the court informed of changes to their mailing address and electronic contact information. The court mailed that order to Gilmore.
On March 13, 2025, mail sent to the address Gilmore provided when filing the case was returned. The court found a different address in Gilmore’s February 3, 2025 letter.
Order The court stated that it would update Gilmore’s mailing address to the address in his February letter unless he objected and provided a new address by March 31, 2025. The court also strongly encouraged Gilmore to consent to electronic service through the court’s electronic filing system.
Appeal-fee ruling and disposition The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Gilmore permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Gilmore’s listed address, and the order would also be available on the electronic docket and sent to his listed email address. This order addressed contact information and appeal-fee status; the opinion did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.