Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 2, 2025

Caldwell v. St. James Presbyterian Church

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-07120
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Emmett Caldwell v. St. James Presbyterian Church, Judge Swain dismissed the action without prejudice because Caldwell lacked required permission to proceed without filing fees.

Who this affects

Emmett Caldwell's action against St. James Presbyterian Church and the other named defendants was dismissed without prejudice; Caldwell was also denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal.

What happened

Emmett Caldwell v. St. James Presbyterian Church concerns a new action Caldwell filed without a lawyer while asking to proceed without paying filing fees. A 2015 court order required him to obtain permission before filing any new action under that arrangement.

Caldwell had not asked for that permission before filing this action. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims against St. James Presbyterian Church or the other defendants.

Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the action without prejudice for violating the 2015 order. She also denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

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

Case
Caldwell v. St. James Presbyterian Church · No. 1:25-cv-07120
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Sept. 2, 2025

Background

Emmett Caldwell filed this action without a lawyer and requested permission to proceed without paying filing fees. The opinion states that, in 2015, Caldwell was barred from filing any new action under that arrangement unless he first obtained permission from the court. That restriction came from a July 9, 2015 order.

Caldwell did not seek the required permission before filing this action. The opinion does not explain the claims or other allegations underlying the action.

Ruling

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, the court dismissed the action without prejudice because Caldwell failed to comply with the July 9, 2015 order. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Caldwell permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal.

Effect

The order ended this action at this stage based on Caldwell's failure to obtain the required permission. It did not decide the merits of the claims described in the 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.