Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 17, 2025

Davis v. Otis Bantum Correctional Facility

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:24-cv-09628
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Davis v. Otis Bantum Correctional Facility, Judge Swain dismissed the complaint without prejudice after Davis failed to file required forms or pay filing fees.

Who this affects

Alex Davis's complaint was dismissed without prejudice because he did not submit the required fee-waiver materials or pay the filing fees. The court also denied fee-waiver status for an appeal.

What happened

In Davis v. Otis Bantum Correctional Facility, the court had ordered Alex Davis to either submit an application to proceed without paying filing fees and a required prisoner authorization, or pay the $405 filing fees.

Davis did neither within the required thirty days. The court therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling, and directed the clerk to enter judgment.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Davis permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.

The detailed version

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

Case
Davis v. Otis Bantum Correctional Facility · No. 1:24-cv-09628
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Mar. 17, 2025

Background

The court had previously ordered Alex Davis, within thirty days, to submit a completed application to proceed without paying filing fees, commonly called an IFP application, and a prisoner authorization, or to pay the $405 in fees required to file a civil action. The earlier order stated that failing to comply would result in dismissal.

Ruling

The court found that Davis had not submitted the IFP application or prisoner authorization and had not paid the filing fees. It dismissed the complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915. The court also directed the clerk to enter judgment.

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. The order did not address the underlying claims in the complaint.

Effect

The dismissal was based on Davis’s failure to satisfy the filing-fee or fee-waiver requirements, not on a decision about the merits of the complaint. The opinion states that the dismissal was without prejudice.

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.