Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 9, 2020

No v. USPS/USPO

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:19-cv-11672
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

Judge McMahon dismissed No v. USPS/USPO without prejudice because No neither submitted the required fee-waiver application nor paid filing fees.

Who this affects

Jeong-Suk No's action was dismissed without prejudice for failure to submit the required amended fee-waiver application or pay the $400 filing fees. Pending motions were denied as moot, and fee-waiver status was denied for an appeal.

What happened

In Jeong-Suk No v. USPS/USPO, the court ordered Jeong-Suk No to submit a corrected request to waive the filing fee or pay the required $400 filing fees.

No did neither within the required thirty days. The opinion does not address the underlying claims.

Chief Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action without prejudice and denied all pending motions as moot. She also denied fee-waiver status for any appeal.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
No v. USPS/USPO · No. 1:19-cv-11672
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Mar. 9, 2020

Background

On January 23, 2020, the court directed Plaintiff Jeong-Suk No to do one of two things within thirty days: submit an amended application to proceed without paying the filing fee, or pay the $400 required to file a civil action. The court warned that failing to comply would result in dismissal.

What happened

No did not submit an amended fee-waiver application and did not pay the filing fees. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims against USPS/USPO or decide their merits.

Ruling

Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915. The court denied all pending motions as moot. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal. The clerk was directed to note service on the docket.

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.