Christenson v. Khristianson
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-11965
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Christenson v. Khristianson, Judge McMahon dismissed the action without prejudice because Christenson did not seek required permission to proceed without fees.
Mark C. Christenson's action was dismissed without prejudice, and he was denied permission to appeal without paying the required fees. The opinion does not state any separate relief affecting Michael Khristianson.
What happened
In Christenson v. Khristianson, Mark C. Christenson brought an action in the Southern District of New York but did not pay the required filing fees or apply to proceed without paying them.
The court had previously ordered that Christenson could not file a new civil action without paying fees unless he first obtained permission to proceed without them. Because this action appeared to seek that status but Christenson had not requested the required permission, the court found that he had not followed the earlier order.
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action without prejudice. The court also said that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Christenson permission to appeal without paying the required fees.
The detailed version
- Christenson v. Khristianson · No. 1:19-cv-11965
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 6, 2020
Background
Mark C. Christenson filed this action without paying the filing fees required to bring it. He also did not submit an application to proceed without paying those fees, a status commonly called proceeding without fees.
The court explained that, in a prior related proceeding, it had barred Christenson from filing a new civil action in the Southern District of New York without fees unless he first obtained the court's permission. The opinion states that Christenson did not seek that permission before filing this action.
Ruling
The court treated the action as one in which Christenson sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fees. Because he had not obtained the permission required by the earlier order, the court dismissed this action without prejudice for failure to comply with that order. A dismissal without prejudice does not itself bar refiling, although the opinion does not describe what steps would be required for any new filing.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the required fees. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail the order to Christenson and record service on the docket.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.