Jaffe v. Yellen
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-08890
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Michael R. Jaffe v. Janet Yellen, Judge Swain barred future fee-free civil filings without permission and directed dismissal of this case.
Michael R. Jaffe, who may not file future civil actions in the Southern District of New York without paying filing fees unless he first obtains court permission; future filings that violate the order may be dismissed.
What happened
Michael R. Jaffe v. Janet Yellen began with the court’s January 12, 2025 dismissal of Jaffe’s action as frivolous. The court noted that he had filed at least five actions and appeals dismissed for lack of merit and ordered him to explain why he should not be barred from filing future cases without paying fees unless he first obtained permission.
Instead of responding, Jaffe filed an appeal. The Second Circuit dismissed that appeal as frivolous. Jaffe did not file the required explanation or otherwise contact the court.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain then barred Jaffe from filing future civil actions without paying fees in this court unless he first obtains permission. She required any request for permission to include the proposed complaint and the order, directed that this case be closed and judgment entered dismissing it, and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Jaffe v. Yellen · No. 1:24-cv-08890
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 15, 2025
Background
Michael R. Jaffe filed the action without a lawyer. In an order dated January 12, 2025, the court dismissed the action as frivolous. The court also noted that Jaffe had filed at least five actions and appeals that had been dismissed for lack of merit, and that it had previously warned him that continued frivolous filings could lead to a filing injunction.
The January 12 order required Jaffe to submit a declaration within 30 days explaining why he should not be barred from filing further civil actions without paying filing fees, commonly called filing in forma pauperis, or “IFP,” unless he first obtained the court’s permission. Rather than responding, Jaffe filed a notice of appeal. In a mandate dated July 17, 2025, and issued September 8, 2025, the Second Circuit dismissed that appeal as frivolous because it lacked an arguable basis in law or fact. Jaffe never filed the required declaration and did not otherwise communicate with the court.
Ruling
The court issued the filing bar under 28 U.S.C. § 1651. It barred Jaffe from filing future civil actions IFP in the Southern District of New York without first obtaining leave to file. Any motion for leave must include a copy of the proposed complaint and a copy of the bar order, and must be filed with the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit. The court stated that any action filed without the required motion for leave would be dismissed for failure to comply with the order.
The court also warned that continued submission of frivolous documents could result in additional sanctions, including monetary penalties. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the action and terminate pending motions, certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, denied IFP status for an appeal, and directed entry of judgment dismissing the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.