Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 16, 2025

Buxbaum v. Del Rivero

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-01065
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Buxbaum v. Del Rivero, Judge Swain kept the case closed, ordered late fees returned, and denied fee-waiver status for any appeal.

Who this affects

Michael Buxbaum’s case remains closed, his late filing-fee payment will be returned, and he was denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. Marivi Del Rivero is affected because the action was not reopened.

What happened

In Buxbaum v. Del Rivero, the court addressed Michael Buxbaum’s late payment of the fees required to bring his case. The court had previously dismissed the action without prejudice to reopening if Buxbaum paid the fees or submitted an application to proceed without paying them within 30 days.

Buxbaum did neither within the required period. After that period ended, the court received his payment on May 6, 2025.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered the Clerk of Court to return the payment and stated that the action remains closed. She also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal.

The detailed version

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

Case
Buxbaum v. Del Rivero · No. 1:25-cv-01065
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
June 16, 2025

Background

The court had previously dismissed Michael Buxbaum’s action without prejudice to reopening if, within 30 days after docketing that order, he either paid the $405 filing fees or submitted an application to proceed without paying those fees. Buxbaum did not pay the fees or submit the application within that period.

The court’s Finance Department later received Buxbaum’s payment on May 6, 2025, after the 30-day period had expired and after the action had been dismissed.

Ruling

The court stated that payment received after dismissal would not cause the action to be reopened. It directed the Clerk of Court to return the payment to Buxbaum and stated that the action remains closed.

The court also 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 Buxbaum permission to proceed without paying appeal fees. The order did not address the merits of the underlying action.

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.