Onatolu v. Harvie Glossgal
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-07605
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Onatolu v. Glassgal, Judge McMahon dismissed the new case without prejudice because plaintiff violated a prior filing restriction.
The ruling directly affected plaintiff Adekunle A. Onatolu by dismissing his new civil action without prejudice and denying permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.
What happened
Onatolu v. Harvie Glassgal concerns a new civil case filed by Adekunle A. Onatolu, who was representing himself and asked to proceed without paying filing fees. A 2015 order barred him from filing any new civil action without first getting the court’s permission.
Onatolu had not asked for that permission before filing this case. The court therefore dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to comply with the 2015 order. The opinion says the court did not address documents attached to the complaint about an appeal because there was no order in this case to appeal when those documents were filed.
Judge Colleen McMahon also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. The Clerk was directed to mail Onatolu a copy of the order and record service on the docket.
The detailed version
- Onatolu v. Harvie Glossgal · No. 1:20-cv-07605
- Colleen McMahon
- Sept. 17, 2020
Background
Adekunle A. Onatolu filed this civil action without a lawyer and requested permission to proceed without paying filing fees. The court referred to a July 9, 2015 order that barred Onatolu from filing any new civil action without first obtaining leave from the court.
Reason for dismissal
The opinion states that Onatolu filed this new case, sought permission to proceed without paying filing fees, and did not seek the required permission before filing. The court dismissed the action without prejudice for failing to comply with the 2015 order. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal itself does not bar refiling, although the opinion does not address what additional requirements might apply under the 2015 order.
Other filings and appeal
Onatolu attached a notice of appeal, a request for more time to file a notice of appeal, and a request to proceed without paying fees on appeal. The court did not address those documents because, when the complaint was filed, no order had yet been entered in this action from which to appeal.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Onatolu a copy of the order and note service on the docket.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.