Rivera v. Otis Bantum Correctional Center
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-09666
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Rivera v. Otis Bantum Correctional Facility was dismissed without prejudice for nonpayment; Judge Swain denied appeal fee-waiver status.
Justin Rivera's complaint was dismissed without prejudice because he did not submit the required fee-waiver materials or pay the filing fees. Any appeal from the order was denied fee-waiver status.
What happened
In Rivera v. Otis Bantum Correctional Facility, the court ordered Justin Rivera to submit a completed request to proceed without paying filing fees or pay the required $405 in fees. The court later remailed that order.
Rivera did not submit the required fee-waiver application and prisoner authorization or pay the filing fees. The court therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain also denied fee-waiver status for any appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.
The detailed version
- Rivera v. Otis Bantum Correctional Center · No. 1:24-cv-09666
- Laura Swain
- Apr. 23, 2025
Background
On December 18, 2024, the court directed Justin Rivera, within 30 days, either 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 filing fees required for a civil action. The court warned that failing to comply would result in dismissal. On February 3, 2025, the court remailed the December order to Rivera.
Ruling
The court found that Rivera had not filed the IFP application and prisoner authorization or paid the required fees. It therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.
Appeal
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.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.