Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 2, 2025

Cardell-Smith v. Sean John Combs

Full caption

Derrick Lee Cardell-Smith v. Sean John Combs; Sean John Combs; Sean “Puff Daddy” Combs; P. Diddy; Puffy Brother Love; Fellow Convicted Felon Sean John Combs

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:25-cv-09743
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro SeContract
In one sentence

In Derrick Lee Cardell-Smith v. Sean John Combs, Judge Swain denied IFP and dismissed the complaint without prejudice under the three-strikes rule.

Who this affects

The ruling affects Derrick Lee Cardell-Smith by denying his request to proceed without prepaying fees and dismissing his complaint without prejudice. It does not resolve his breach-of-contract claims against the defendants.

What happened

In Derrick Lee Cardell-Smith v. Sean John Combs, an incarcerated plaintiff filed breach-of-contract claims concerning alleged investments with the defendants. He did not pay the filing fee and sought permission to proceed without paying it upfront.

The court found that the plaintiff had already been barred from proceeding without paying fees under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes rule. His complaint did not show that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury, so the exception to that rule did not apply.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the plaintiff’s request to proceed without paying the filing fee and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying fees and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.

The detailed version

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

Case
Cardell-Smith v. Sean John Combs · No. 1:25-cv-09743
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Dec. 2, 2025

Background

Derrick Lee Cardell-Smith, who is incarcerated at Kinross Correctional Facility, brought this action without a lawyer against Sean John Combs and the other defendants listed in the caption. Because he did not pay the filing fee, the court treated the complaint as requesting permission to proceed without prepaying fees, commonly called in forma pauperis status.

The complaint asserted breach-of-contract claims arising from investments that Cardell-Smith allegedly made with the defendants. The opinion does not decide whether those claims were valid.

Three-Strikes Rule

The Prison Litigation Reform Act generally bars a prisoner from proceeding without prepaying fees if the prisoner previously had three or more qualifying actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. The law contains an exception when the prisoner is in imminent danger of serious physical injury.

The court noted that a prior related proceeding had already recognized Cardell-Smith as barred from filing new civil actions without prepaying fees while incarcerated. The court further found that this complaint did not show imminent danger of serious physical injury. Because the exception did not apply, Cardell-Smith could not proceed without prepaying the filing fee.

Rulings

The court denied Cardell-Smith’s request to proceed without prepaying fees and dismissed the complaint without prejudice under the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes rule. The opinion states that he may start a new action by paying the filing fees.

The court certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. It directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. The court did not reach the merits of the breach-of-contract claims.

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.