DANNY AMEN VALENTINE SHABAZZ v. DIGGS
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-05593
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Shabazz v. Diggs, Chief Judge Swain dismissed the action without prejudice because Shabazz neither paid filing fees nor requested fee relief.
Danny Amen Valentine Shabazz’s action against Robert Diggs was dismissed without prejudice. The court also denied all pending motions and requests as moot and denied fee relief for an appeal.
What happened
In DANNY AMEN VALENTINE SHABAZZ v. ROBERT DIGGS, the court had ordered Shabazz to submit a completed request to proceed without paying filing fees or pay the required $405 in fees within 30 days.
Shabazz did neither. The order also states that the court denied all motions and requests as moot and directed the clerk to terminate docket entries 7 and 8.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the action without prejudice, directed the clerk to enter judgment, and denied fee relief for any appeal after finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- DANNY AMEN VALENTINE SHABAZZ v. DIGGS · No. 1:25-cv-05593
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 10, 2025
Background
On July 24, 2025, the court ordered Danny Amen Valentine Shabazz to do one of two things within 30 days: submit a completed application to proceed without paying the filing fee, called an in forma pauperis application, or pay the $405 required to file a civil action. The order warned that failing to comply would result in dismissal.
Court’s Ruling
The court found that Shabazz had not submitted the application or paid the filing fee. It therefore dismissed the action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915. The court denied all motions and requests as moot and directed the clerk to terminate ECF entries 7 and 8.
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 permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The court directed the clerk to enter a judgment dismissing the action for the reason stated in the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.