Hamm v. NYPD Parking Enforcement Action Unit
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-02687
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hamm v. NYPD Parking Enforcement Action Unit, Judge McMahon dismissed the action without prejudice after Hamm failed to pay fees, submit fee-waiver paperwork, or update his address.
Jeffery Hamm’s case was dismissed without prejudice because he did not comply with the court’s filing-fee and address-update requirements. The court also denied fee-waiver status for an appeal from this order.
What happened
Jeffery Hamm sued NY City PD Parking Enforcement Action Unit and others in Hamm v. NYPD Parking Enforcement Action Unit. The opinion does not describe the claims.
The court had ordered Hamm to submit an amended application to proceed without paying filing fees, pay the $400 filing fee, and update his address within 30 days. Hamm did none of those things.
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action without prejudice, meaning Hamm may refile it. The court also denied fee-waiver status for any appeal after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Hamm v. NYPD Parking Enforcement Action Unit · No. 1:20-cv-02687
- Colleen McMahon
- July 8, 2020
Background
Jeffery Hamm brought this action against NY City PD Parking Enforcement Action Unit and other defendants. The opinion does not describe the claims or the underlying events.
Court’s April 28 Order
The court previously directed Hamm, within 30 days, either to submit an amended application to proceed without paying the filing fees or to pay the $400 required to file a civil action. The court also required him to update his address of record within the same period. The court warned that failing to comply would result in dismissal without prejudice to refiling.
Disposition
Hamm did not submit the amended fee-waiver application, pay the filing fees, or update his address. The court therefore dismissed the action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The dismissal did not decide the underlying claims. The clerk was directed to mail the order to Hamm and record service on the docket.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.