Ugwu v. United States
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:19-cv-09239
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ugwu v. United States, Judge Broderick dismissed the action without prejudice because Ugwu neither paid filing fees nor submitted the required prisoner authorization.
Emmanuel Ugwu's civil action was dismissed without prejudice because he did not satisfy the court's filing-fee or prisoner-authorization requirement; the order also denied fee-free status for an appeal.
What happened
Emmanuel Ugwu asked to have seized property returned in his closed criminal case, but the court treated his request as a new civil case called Ugwu v. United States.
The court ordered Ugwu to submit a completed prisoner authorization or pay the required $400 filing fees within 30 days. The opinion states that he did neither.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick dismissed the action without prejudice, closed the case, and denied fee-free status for any appeal because the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Ugwu v. United States · No. 1:19-cv-09239
- Vernon Broderick
- June 15, 2020
Background
On September 27, 2019, Emmanuel Ugwu filed a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) seeking the return of seized property. He filed the motion under the docket for his closed criminal case, United States v. Ugwu, No. 15-cr-417 (VSB). On October 4, 2019, the court directed the Clerk of Court to treat the motion as a new civil action, and the Clerk opened this case.
Filing Requirements
On October 9, 2019, the court ordered Ugwu to submit a completed prisoner authorization or pay the $400 required to file a civil action in the court. The order warned that failing to comply would result in dismissal. The opinion states that Ugwu did not submit the authorization or pay the fees.
Ruling
Judge Vernon S. Broderick dismissed the action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at Document 2 and close the case. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. The order did not decide whether Ugwu was entitled to the return of the seized property.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.