Pettus v. Pettus
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-08136
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In James Pettus v. Seth Pettus, Judge Swain dismissed the action without prejudice because Pettus filed without required court permission.
The dismissal affected James Pettus’s newly filed action. The opinion did not decide the merits of his claims against Seth Pettus or the other defendants.
What happened
James Pettus v. Seth Pettus, et al. involved James Pettus’s new civil action against Seth Pettus and others. Pettus filed without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying filing fees.
An earlier judgment had barred Pettus from filing future civil actions in this court unless he first obtained the court’s permission. He filed this action but did not request that permission.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the action without prejudice because Pettus did not follow the earlier judgment. She also denied fee-free status for an appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and directed the clerk to enter judgment.
The detailed version
- Pettus v. Pettus · No. 1:25-cv-08136
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 20, 2025
Background
James Pettus filed this civil action without a lawyer against Seth Pettus and others. He asked to proceed without paying filing fees, a request commonly called an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
The court stated that an earlier judgment dated February 4, 2005, and entered February 24, 2005, barred Pettus from filing future civil actions in the Southern District of New York without first obtaining the court’s permission to file. The earlier judgment was issued in a prior related proceeding and cited 28 U.S.C. § 1651. The opinion also states that an appeal from that earlier judgment was dismissed as frivolous.
Court’s Ruling
Because Pettus filed this new action without first seeking the required permission, the court dismissed the action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1651. The opinion did not address the underlying claims against the defendants.
The court 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 fee-free status for purposes of an appeal and directed the clerk to enter 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.