Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 12, 2019

Molina v. Department of Corrections

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:19-cv-09388
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Molina v. Department of Corrections, Judge McMahon dismissed the complaint without prejudice after Molina neither filed authorization nor paid the filing fee.

Who this affects

Julio Molina, whose complaint was dismissed without prejudice because he did not submit the required prisoner authorization or pay the filing fee; any appeal would not receive fee-waiver status.

What happened

In Molina v. Department of Corrections, the court had ordered Julio Molina to submit a completed prisoner authorization or pay the $400 filing fee within 30 days.

Molina did neither. The opinion does not address the underlying claims in his complaint.

Chief Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the complaint without prejudice, allowing Molina to file a new action. Judge McMahon also denied fee-waiver status for an appeal after certifying that 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
Molina v. Department of Corrections · No. 1:19-cv-09388
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Nov. 12, 2019

Background

By an order dated October 10, 2019, the court directed Julio Molina to submit a completed prisoner authorization or pay the $400 required filing fee within 30 days. The earlier order warned that failing to comply would result in dismissal of the complaint.

Court’s ruling

Molina did not file the prisoner authorization or pay the fee. Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice, meaning Molina may refile a new action. The court did not decide the underlying claims.

The court directed the Clerk of Court to mail Molina a copy of the order and record service on the docket. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Molina fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal.

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.