Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 6, 2025

Usman v. Doe

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-02263
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Usman v. Doe, Judge Swain dismissed the complaint without prejudice because Usman neither paid filing fees nor submitted required forms.

Who this affects

Shahab Usman’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice because he did not submit the required application and prisoner authorization or pay the filing fees. The court also denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.

What happened

In Usman v. Doe, the court gave Shahab Usman 30 days to submit an application to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance and a required prisoner authorization, or to pay the $405 filing fee.

Usman did not submit the required documents or pay the fee. The court therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice, meaning it could be filed again, 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 permission to proceed without paying appeal-related fees.

The detailed version

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

Case
Usman v. Doe · No. 1:25-cv-02263
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
May 6, 2025

Background

By an order dated March 28, 2025, the court directed Shahab Usman to do one of two things within 30 days: submit a completed application to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance, along with a required prisoner authorization, or pay the $405 in fees required to file a civil action. The earlier order warned that failing to comply would result in dismissal.

Ruling

The court stated that Usman had not submitted the application and prisoner authorization and had not paid the required fees. It therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice, meaning the complaint could be filed again. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment.

Appeal-fee ruling

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 permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. The order did not address the merits of the underlying complaint.

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.