Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 3, 2025

Ortiz v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-06051
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Social SecurityCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Ortiz v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Swain dismissed the complaint without prejudice because Ortiz neither paid filing fees nor requested a fee waiver.

Who this affects

Rosalin Ortiz's complaint was dismissed without prejudice because she did not pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed without paying it. The Social Security claim's merits were not addressed.

What happened

Rosalin Ortiz sued the Commissioner of Social Security. The court ordered Ortiz to either pay the $405 filing fee or submit an application to proceed without paying it within 30 days.

Ortiz did neither. The court therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling, and directed the clerk to enter judgment.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain also denied Ortiz permission to appeal without paying fees, finding 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
Ortiz v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:25-cv-06051
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Sept. 3, 2025

Background

On July 28, 2025, the court ordered Rosalin Ortiz to submit a completed application to proceed without paying the filing fee, commonly called an IFP application, or to pay the $405 fee required to file a civil action. The order warned that failing to comply would result in dismissal.

What the Court Did

The court found that Ortiz had not submitted an IFP application or paid the filing fee. It dismissed the complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915. The court also directed the clerk to enter judgment.

Appeal-Fee Ruling

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. The opinion did not address the merits of Ortiz's Social Security claim.

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.