Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 9, 2025

Williams v. The City of New York

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-02855
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Williams v. The City of New York, Judge Swain dismissed the action without prejudice because Williams neither paid filing fees nor submitted a fee-waiver application.

Who this affects

Rahjeem Williams's action was dismissed without prejudice for failing to pay the filing fees or submit the required fee-waiver application. The opinion does not identify the underlying claims.

What happened

In Williams v. The City of New York, the court had ordered Rahjeem Williams to submit an application to waive the filing fees or pay the required $405 within 30 days.

Williams did neither. The court therefore dismissed the action without prejudice, meaning it was not permanently barred from being filed again on that ground, and denied a pending motion as moot.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain also denied fee-waiver status for any appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The clerk was directed to enter judgment dismissing the action.

The detailed version

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

Case
Williams v. The City of New York · No. 1:25-cv-02855
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
June 9, 2025

Background

On April 9, 2025, the court directed Rahjeem Williams, within 30 days, either to submit a completed application to proceed without paying the filing fees or to pay the $405 required to file a civil action. The order warned that failing to comply would result in dismissal.

Ruling

Williams did not submit the application or pay the fees. The court dismissed the action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915. The court also denied the pending motion identified as ECF 4 as moot, meaning the motion no longer required a decision because of the dismissal.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment dismissing the action. The order did not address the underlying claims.

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.