Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 11, 2020

Seabrook v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Docket
1:20-cv-02005
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Seabrook v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., Judge McMahon dismissed the complaint without prejudice because Seabrook neither paid the filing fee nor submitted required forms.

Who this affects

James Seabrook's complaint was dismissed without prejudice because he did not pay the filing fee or submit the required forms; his request to appeal without paying the appeal fee was also denied.

What happened

In Seabrook v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., the court had ordered James Seabrook to submit an application to proceed without paying the filing fee and a prisoner authorization, or to pay the required $400 filing fee.

Seabrook did none of those things within the required thirty-day period. The court therefore dismissed his complaint without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling.

Judge McMahon also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Seabrook permission to appeal without paying the appeal filing fee.

The detailed version

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

Case
Seabrook v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-02005
Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Date
June 11, 2020

Background

The court had previously ordered Plaintiff James Seabrook, within thirty days, to submit a completed application to proceed without paying the filing fee and a prisoner authorization, or to pay the $400 required fee for filing a civil action. The earlier order warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal.

Ruling

The court found that Seabrook had not submitted the required application and authorization and had not paid the filing fee. It 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 any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail the order to Seabrook and record 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.