Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 18, 2019

Christenson v. Christenson

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:19-cv-11552
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Christenson v. Christenson, Chief Judge McMahon dismissed the pro se action without prejudice because Plaintiff neither sought permission to file nor paid fees.

Who this affects

Mark C. Christenson's action was dismissed without prejudice for failing to obtain required permission or pay the filing fees; the opinion did not decide the underlying dispute with Rufus Christenson.

What happened

In Christenson v. Christenson, Mark C. Christenson filed a new case without a lawyer. The opinion says he was previously barred from filing any new case without paying fees or first obtaining court permission to proceed without paying them.

The court assumed that Christenson wanted to proceed without paying the filing fee. He did not ask for the required permission and did not pay the filing fees.

Chief Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action without prejudice because Christenson did not comply with the earlier order. The court also denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal, finding 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
Christenson v. Christenson · No. 1:19-cv-11552
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Dec. 18, 2019

Background

Mark C. Christenson filed this new case without a lawyer against Rufus Christenson. The court stated that an earlier order barred him from filing any new action without paying the filing fee unless he first obtained the court's permission to proceed without paying it.

The opinion says that Christenson neither requested that permission nor paid the filing fees. The court assumed for purposes of this order that he sought to proceed without paying the fee.

Ruling

Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action without prejudice because Christenson failed to comply with the earlier order. A dismissal without prejudice does not itself bar a later filing. The court did not address the underlying dispute between the parties.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk was directed to mail Christenson a copy of the order and record service on the docket.

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.