Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 13, 2020

Dunnell v. Department of Corrections, G.R.V.C.

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:19-cv-11918
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Dunnell v. Department of Corrections, G.R.V.C., Judge McMahon dismissed the complaint without prejudice because Dunnell neither paid the filing fee nor submitted authorization.

Who this affects

Platto Dunnell’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice for failing to pay the filing fee or submit the required prisoner authorization. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal.

What happened

In Dunnell v. Department of Corrections, G.R.V.C., the court had ordered Platto Dunnell to submit a completed prisoner authorization or pay the required filing fees within 30 days.

Dunnell did neither. The court therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling.

Judge Colleen McMahon also denied fee-free status for any 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
Dunnell v. Department of Corrections, G.R.V.C. · No. 1:19-cv-11918
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Feb. 13, 2020

Background

Platto Dunnell sued the Department of Corrections, G.R.V.C., and three correctional officers identified as C. O. L. Pena, C. O. Perez, and C. O. Guzman. On January 3, 2020, the court ordered Dunnell to submit a completed prisoner authorization or pay the $400 filing fee required to bring a civil action. The order warned that failing to comply would result in dismissal.

Court’s Action

Dunnell did not submit the authorization or pay the fee. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915. The order also directed the Clerk of Court to mail Dunnell a copy and record service on the docket.

Ruling

Chief Judge Colleen McMahon certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. The opinion did not address the merits of Dunnell’s claims against the defendants.

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.