Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 2, 2020

Christenson v. Spectrum Telecommunications

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:20-cv-04822
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Christenson v. Spectrum Telecommunications, Chief Judge McMahon dismissed the action without prejudice because Christenson lacked permission to file without paying fees.

Who this affects

Mark C. Christenson, whose action was dismissed without prejudice because he filed without the permission required by an earlier court order.

What happened

In Christenson v. Spectrum Telecommunications, Mark C. Christenson filed an action without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. A 2018 court order had barred him from filing new actions without paying fees unless he first obtained the court’s permission.

Christenson had not requested or received that permission before filing this action. The opinion does not address the underlying claims against Spectrum Telecommunications.

Chief Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action without prejudice for violating the 2018 order. She also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.

The detailed version

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

Case
Christenson v. Spectrum Telecommunications · No. 1:20-cv-04822
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
July 2, 2020

Background

Mark C. Christenson filed this action without a lawyer and without prepaying the filing fee. The opinion states that, on June 20, 2018, the court had barred him from filing any new action without prepaying the fee unless he first received the court’s permission to file.

Christenson did not request or receive that permission before filing this case. The opinion does not discuss the substance of his claims against Spectrum Telecommunications.

Ruling

Chief Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 because Christenson failed to comply with the June 20, 2018 order. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal did not use those words to bar refiling, although any future filing would remain subject to the stated filing restriction.

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