Christenson v. Sekulow
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-11820
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Christenson v. Sekulow, Judge McMahon dismissed the case without prejudice because Christenson filed without paying the fee despite an earlier filing restriction.
Mark C. Christenson’s attempt to pursue this action without prepaying the filing fee was dismissed without prejudice; the opinion does not describe any ruling on the claims against John Sekulow.
What happened
In Christenson v. Sekulow, Mark C. Christenson represented himself and filed an action against John Sekulow without paying the filing fee in advance.
The court had previously ordered that Christenson could not file a new action without paying the fee unless he first obtained the court’s permission. The court dismissed this case because Christenson did not comply with that order.
Judge McMahon dismissed the action without prejudice. The court also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Christenson permission to appeal without paying the appellate filing fee.
The detailed version
- Christenson v. Sekulow · No. 1:19-cv-11820
- Colleen McMahon
- Dec. 27, 2019
Background
Mark C. Christenson filed this action against John Sekulow while representing himself. He did not prepay the filing fee and sought to proceed without prepaying it, a status commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP).
The court stated that, in a June 20, 2018 order in a prior related proceeding, Christenson had been barred from filing any new action without first obtaining the court’s permission to file when proceeding IFP.
Ruling
The court dismissed this action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 because Christenson failed to comply with the June 20, 2018 order. The opinion does not address the underlying claims against Sekulow. The clerk was directed to mail Christenson a copy of the order and record service on the docket.
Appeal and Classification
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. This is a procedural order because the action was dismissed for failure to comply with a prior filing restriction, without reaching the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.