Kilpatrick v. Hochul
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-06672
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Kilpatrick v. Hochul, Judge Swain dismissed the action without prejudice because Kilpatrick lacked required permission to file without prepaying fees.
Gregory D. Kilpatrick's newly filed action was dismissed without prejudice because he did not obtain the required court permission before filing without prepaying the filing fee.
What happened
Gregory D. Kilpatrick filed Kilpatrick v. Hochul as a self-represented case and asked to proceed without prepaying the filing fee.
A 2018 court order barred Kilpatrick from filing a new action without prepaying fees unless he first obtained the court’s permission. He did not seek that permission before filing this case.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the action without prejudice for violating the 2018 order. She also directed the clerk to terminate two motions, enter a civil judgment, and deny fee-waiver status for any appeal because an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Kilpatrick v. Hochul · No. 1:25-cv-06672
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 21, 2025
Background
Gregory D. Kilpatrick filed this new self-represented action against Kathy Hochul and other defendants. He sought permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, a status commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP).
Prior Filing Restriction
The court stated that, on January 23, 2018, Kilpatrick had been barred from filing any new action without prepaying the filing fee unless he first obtained leave from the court. Kilpatrick did not seek that leave before filing this action.
Ruling
The court dismissed the action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 for failure to comply with the January 23, 2018 order. The court directed the clerk to terminate the motions at ECF 5 and 7 and to enter a civil judgment. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.