Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 24, 2025

Rodriguez v. New York

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-00350
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Rodriguez v. New York, Judge Swain dismissed the complaint without prejudice after Rodriguez neither paid the filing fee nor submitted an IFP application.

Who this affects

Rudolfo Rodriguez’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice. His request to appeal without paying fees was denied, and the court stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue.

What happened

In Rodriguez v. New York, the court had ordered Rudolfo Rodriguez to submit an application to proceed without paying filing fees or pay the required $5 filing fee within 30 days.

Rodriguez did neither. The court therefore dismissed his complaint without prejudice, meaning the opinion did not bar him from filing again.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain also denied Rodriguez permission to appeal without paying fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and said no certificate allowing an appeal would issue.

The detailed version

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

Case
Rodriguez v. New York · No. 1:25-cv-00350
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Mar. 24, 2025

Background

By an order dated January 24, 2025, the court directed Rudolfo Rodriguez either to submit a completed application to proceed without paying filing fees or to pay the $5 fee required to file a civil action. The order warned that failing to comply would result in dismissal.

Court’s ruling

Rodriguez did not submit the application or pay the fee. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915. The opinion does not address the underlying allegations or decide their merits.

The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying fees. It further stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue because the petition made no substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. The court 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.