Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 29, 2025

Liggins v. Rikard

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-06915
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Adrian Liggins v. Rikard, Judge Swain dismissed Liggins’s habeas action without prejudice because he neither paid the filing fee nor submitted an IFP application.

Who this affects

Adrian Liggins’s habeas action was dismissed without prejudice. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying the appeal fee and declined to issue a certificate of appealability.

What happened

In Adrian Liggins v. Rikard, the court had ordered Adrian Liggins to submit an application to proceed without paying the filing fee or to pay the $5 filing fee for a habeas action. The order gave him 30 days to comply.

Liggins did neither. The court therefore dismissed the action without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling.

Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain also ruled that no certificate of appealability would issue and denied permission to appeal without paying the appeal fee. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment.

The detailed version

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

Case
Liggins v. Rikard · No. 1:25-cv-06915
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Oct. 29, 2025

Background

Adrian Liggins filed a habeas petition against Rikard. On August 26, 2025, the court ordered Liggins, within 30 days, either to submit a completed application to proceed without paying the filing fee or to pay the $5 fee required to file a habeas action in that court. The order warned that failing to comply would result in dismissal.

Court’s Action

Liggins did not submit the application and did not pay the fee. The court therefore dismissed the action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915.

The court also stated that the petition made no substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied, so it would not issue a certificate of appealability. In addition, the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the appeal fee. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment dismissing the action.

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.