Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 8, 2025

Patillo v. Doe

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-04520
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

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

Who this affects

Damon Patillo's complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and permission to appeal without paying fees was denied.

What happened

In Patillo v. Doe, the court ordered Damon Patillo to submit forms requesting permission to proceed without paying filing fees, along with prisoner authorization, or to pay the required $405 in fees. The court warned that failing to do so would lead to dismissal.

Patillo did not submit the forms or pay the fees. The court therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling. It also denied permission to appeal without paying fees and directed the clerk to enter judgment.

Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain issued the order on August 8, 2025, and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

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

Case
Patillo v. Doe · No. 1:25-cv-04520
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Aug. 8, 2025

Background

By an order dated June 5, 2025, the court directed Plaintiff Damon Patillo, within thirty days, either to submit a completed application to proceed without paying filing fees and a prisoner authorization or to pay the $405 required to file a civil action. The court warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal.

Ruling

The court found that Patillo had not submitted the required application and prisoner authorization and had not paid the filing fees. It dismissed the complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying fees. It directed the clerk to enter judgment in the case.

Effect of the Order

The dismissal was without prejudice, so the opinion does not state that refiling is barred. The order ended the case at that stage because Patillo did not complete the required filing-fee or application steps.

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.