Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 25, 2025

Caldwell v. St. James Presbyterian Church

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-02522
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

Caldwell v. St. James Presbyterian Church: Judge Swain denied leave to file, denied IFP status, and dismissed the action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1651.

Who this affects

Emmett Caldwell's action was dismissed without prejudice, his request for permission to file and application to proceed without paying the filing fee were denied, and fee-free status was also denied for any appeal. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims against St. James Presbyterian Church or the other defendants.

What happened

In Emmett Caldwell v. St. James Presbyterian Church, et al., Caldwell filed a new action without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. A 2015 order had barred him from filing new actions without first getting court permission.

Caldwell's request cited alleged discrimination, slavery, disenfranchisement, constitutional rights, and judicial action. The court decided that these assertions did not show a departure from his pattern of frivolous litigation.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Caldwell's request for permission to file and his application to proceed without paying the filing fee. She dismissed the action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, directed the Clerk to enter a civil judgment, and denied fee-free status for any appeal because an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

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

Case
Caldwell v. St. James Presbyterian Church · No. 1:25-cv-02522
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Nov. 25, 2025

Background

The court stated that, in 2015, Emmett Caldwell was barred from filing any new action without paying the filing fee unless he first obtained the court's permission. In this case, Caldwell filed a new action without a lawyer and sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Caldwell submitted a motion explaining why he believed the court should allow the complaint to be filed. The court quoted that submission and described its assertions as allegations involving race, slavery, disenfranchisement, constitutional rights, attorneys, and judicial action.

Ruling

The court concluded that Caldwell's assertions did not indicate a departure from his pattern of frivolous litigation. It therefore denied his motion for leave to file and denied his application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court dismissed the action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, meaning the dismissal itself did not bar refiling, although the opinion does not state what additional requirements would apply to any future filing.

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 and denied fee-free status for an appeal. It directed the Clerk of Court to issue a civil judgment dismissing the case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.