Barnett v. Westchester County
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-09976
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Barnett v. Westchester County, Judge McMahon dismissed the complaint without prejudice because Barnett neither paid filing fees nor submitted updated authorization.
Jerome Barnett's complaint was dismissed without prejudice because he did not submit the required updated prisoner authorization or pay the filing fees. The order also denied fee-free status for an appeal; the opinion does not state that the court ruled on the defendants' liability.
What happened
Jerome Barnett sued Westchester County and several listed medical, legal-aid, nursing, and correctional defendants. The court had ordered him to submit updated prisoner authorization or pay the required $400 filing fees within 30 days.
Barnett did neither. The court therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice, meaning the order did not bar refiling under the terms stated.
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon also denied fee-free status for any appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The order did not address the allegations against the defendants.
The detailed version
- Barnett v. Westchester County · No. 1:19-cv-09976
- Colleen McMahon
- Dec. 23, 2019
Background
Jerome Barnett filed a complaint naming Westchester County and several defendants, including people identified as doctors, a nurse, a warden, and a Legal Aid Society representative. The opinion does not resolve the allegations against those defendants.
On November 8, 2019, the court ordered Barnett to submit an updated prisoner authorization or pay the $400 filing fees required to start a civil action in the court. The order warned that failure to comply within 30 days would result in dismissal.
Ruling
The court stated that Barnett had not submitted an updated prisoner authorization or paid the fees. It therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.