Taylor v. Starbucks Corporate
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-01435
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Taylor v. Starbucks Corporate, Judge Swain dismissed the complaint without prejudice because Taylor neither paid filing fees nor submitted a request to proceed without paying them.
Kenny J. Taylor’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and he was denied permission to proceed without paying fees on appeal. The underlying claims were not decided.
What happened
In Taylor v. Starbucks Corporate, Kenny J. Taylor’s complaint was subject to a court order requiring him to submit a completed request to proceed without paying filing fees or pay the required $405 filing fee within 30 days.
Taylor did neither. The court therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not permanently 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 Taylor permission to proceed without paying fees on appeal. The court did not address the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Taylor v. Starbucks Corporate · No. 1:25-cv-01435
- Laura Swain
- Apr. 25, 2025
Background
The court had previously ordered Kenny J. Taylor to submit a completed application to proceed without paying the filing fee or to pay the $405 required to file a civil action. The order gave Taylor 30 days to comply and warned that failure to do so would result in dismissal. Taylor did not submit the application or pay the fee.
Ruling
The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment. Because the dismissal was based on Taylor’s failure to satisfy the filing requirement, the opinion did not decide the underlying claims against Starbucks Corporate, Brian Niccol, Andii (Store Manager), or Regional Manager.
Appeal
The court certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.