Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 17, 2020

Onatolu v. Food Stamps

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:20-cv-07601
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Onatolu v. Food Stamps, Judge McMahon dismissed the case without prejudice because Onatolu filed without required permission under an earlier court order.

Who this affects

Adekunle A. Onatolu, whose action against Food Stamps was dismissed without prejudice and whose request to proceed without paying fees on appeal was denied.

What happened

In Onatolu v. Food Stamps, Adekunle A. Onatolu filed a new case without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying filing fees. An earlier court order required him to get permission before filing any new case without paying fees, but he did not ask for that permission.

The court dismissed the action without prejudice because Onatolu did not comply with the earlier order. The court did not address the attached appeal-related documents because there was not yet an order in this case to appeal.

Judge Colleen McMahon also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.

The detailed version

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

Case
Onatolu v. Food Stamps · No. 1:20-cv-07601
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Sept. 17, 2020

Background

An earlier order barred Adekunle A. Onatolu from filing any new civil action without paying filing fees unless he first obtained permission from the court. In this case, Onatolu filed a new action against Food Stamps, sought permission to proceed without paying filing fees, and did not first seek the required permission to file.

Ruling

The court dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to comply with the earlier order. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal itself does not bar a later filing, although the opinion does not describe what steps would be required for any future filing.

Appeal-Related Documents

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 the appeal.

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.