Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 3, 2020

Christenson v. Wiliamson

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:20-cv-01828
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Christenson v. Wiliamson, Judge McMahon dismissed the case without prejudice because Christenson lacked permission to file it.

Who this affects

Mark C. Christenson’s case was dismissed without prejudice, and he was denied fee-free status for an appeal. The opinion does not address the underlying claims against Robert Wiliamson.

What happened

Christenson v. Wiliamson involved Mark C. Christenson’s new case against Robert Wiliamson. Christenson filed without a lawyer and did not pay the filing fee.

A June 20, 2018 court order barred Christenson from filing new cases without paying the fee unless he first received the court’s permission. He had not requested or received that permission for this case.

Chief Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the case without prejudice for violating the earlier order. She also denied Christenson fee-free status 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. Wiliamson · No. 1:20-cv-01828
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Mar. 3, 2020

Background

Mark C. Christenson filed this action against Robert Wiliamson without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.

A June 20, 2018 order had barred Christenson from filing any new action without paying the filing fee unless he first obtained the court’s permission. Christenson had not requested or received permission before filing this action.

Ruling

Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 because Christenson failed to comply with the earlier filing restriction. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal did not itself bar refiling, although the earlier permission requirement remained relevant.

The court directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Christenson and record service on the docket. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Christenson permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.

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.