Pettus v. Mazzola
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-03106
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Pettus v. Mazzola, Judge Swain dismissed the action without prejudice because Pettus did not obtain required permission before filing.
James Pettus’s action was dismissed without prejudice. The order also denied him permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal.
What happened
James Pettus, representing himself, filed a civil action against Bryan Mazzola and others and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. A 2005 judgment had barred Pettus from filing future civil actions in the Southern District of New York without first obtaining the court’s permission.
Pettus did not ask for that permission before filing this action. The court therefore dismissed the action without prejudice for failing to comply with the earlier judgment.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment dismissing the action. She also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Pettus permission to proceed without paying the fee for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Pettus v. Mazzola · No. 1:25-cv-03106
- Laura Swain
- Apr. 16, 2025
Background
James Pettus, proceeding without a lawyer, filed this civil action against Bryan Mazzola and others. He sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court stated that, on February 4, 2005, it had barred Pettus from filing future civil actions in the Southern District of New York unless he first obtained the court’s permission to file. The earlier case was identified as No. 1:05-CV-1439. The opinion also stated that an appeal from that earlier matter was dismissed as frivolous.
Ruling
Pettus had not obtained the required permission before filing this action. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, the court dismissed the action without prejudice because Pettus failed to comply with the 2005 judgment. The opinion does not address the merits of the claims against the defendants.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter a judgment dismissing the action.
Effect
The current action was dismissed without prejudice. The order does not state that any underlying claim was decided on its merits.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.