Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 25, 2025

Adams v. Superintendent

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:24-cv-06622
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Adams v. Superintendent, Judge Swain dismissed without prejudice Adams’s petition after he neither paid the fee nor filed the required application.

Who this affects

Dimetreus Adams’s petition was dismissed without prejudice because he did not pay the filing fee or submit the required amended application. The Superintendent of Elmira Correctional Facility was the named respondent.

What happened

In Dimetreus Adams v. Superintendent of Elmira Correctional Facility, Adams filed a petition challenging his custody. The court had ordered him to pay the $5 filing fee or submit a corrected application to proceed without paying it.

Adams did neither within the required thirty days. The court therefore dismissed the petition without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling. The order did not address the petition’s underlying claims.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain also denied Adams permission to appeal without paying the appeal fee and said no certificate allowing an appeal would issue. The clerk was directed to enter judgment dismissing the case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Adams v. Superintendent · No. 1:24-cv-06622
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Apr. 25, 2025

Background

Dimetreus Adams filed a petition for habeas corpus, a legal procedure used to challenge detention. In an order dated November 26, 2024, the Court directed Adams, within thirty days, either to submit an amended application to proceed without paying the filing fee or to pay the $5 fee required to file the petition. The Court warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal.

The opinion states that Adams was incarcerated when he filed the petition but was later released. On February 12, 2025, the Court mailed a copy of its earlier order to the most recent address Adams had provided.

Ruling

Adams did not submit an amended application to proceed without paying the fee and did not pay the $5 filing fee. The Court therefore dismissed the petition without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915. The opinion does not address the merits of Adams’s underlying petition.

The Court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the appeal fee. It also stated that no certificate of appealability would issue because Adams had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied. The Court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment dismissing the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.