Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 25, 2020

Christenson v. Davidson

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:20-cv-06731
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Christenson v. Davidson, Judge McMahon dismissed Christenson’s pro se action without prejudice because he neither obtained required filing permission nor paid fees.

Who this affects

Mark C. Christenson’s case was dismissed without prejudice, and he was denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.

What happened

In Christenson v. Davidson, Mark C. Christenson filed a new case without paying the filing fee or asking for permission to proceed without paying it. A prior court order required him to obtain permission before filing any new case without paying fees.

The court assumed that Christenson wanted to proceed without paying the filing fee. Because he had not requested the required permission, the court dismissed the action without prejudice. The opinion did not address the underlying claims.

Judge Colleen McMahon also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Christenson 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. Davidson · No. 1:20-cv-06731
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Aug. 25, 2020

Background

Mark C. Christenson filed this pro se action against David Davidson. The court stated that, in a prior related proceeding, Christenson had been barred from filing any new action without paying the filing fee unless he first obtained permission from the court. In this case, Christenson did not request that permission and did not pay the filing fees. The court assumed for purposes of the order that he sought to proceed without paying the fees.

Ruling

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, the court dismissed the action without prejudice because Christenson failed to comply with the earlier order requiring permission before filing a new action without paying the filing fee. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal did not itself bar refiling, although the opinion did not address what steps would be required for any later filing.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal. The court did not decide the merits of Christenson’s claims.

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.