Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 18, 2020

Newman v. Park

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:20-cv-05353
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Newman v. Park, Chief Judge McMahon dismissed the complaint without prejudice because Newman paid neither the filing fee nor submitted an application.

Who this affects

Maurice Newman’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice because he did not pay the filing fee or submit the required application. His request to appeal without paying fees was also denied; the opinion did not decide the claims against the defendants.

What happened

In Newman v. Park, the court required Maurice Newman to either pay the $400 filing fee or submit a completed application to proceed without paying the fee.

The court’s earlier order gave Newman 30 days and warned that failing to comply would lead to dismissal. Newman did neither, so the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, meaning it was not permanently barred from being filed again.

Chief Judge Colleen McMahon also denied Newman permission to appeal without paying fees, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

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

Case
Newman v. Park · No. 1:20-cv-05353
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Sept. 18, 2020

Background

Maurice Newman sued Jung A. Park and other defendants. On July 21, 2020, the court ordered Newman, within 30 days, to either pay the $400 required filing fee for a civil action or submit a completed application to proceed without paying the fee. The order warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal.

Ruling

Newman did not submit the application or pay the filing fee. The court therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915. The court directed the Clerk of Court to mail Newman a copy of the order and record service on the docket.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. As a result, permission to appeal without paying the required fees was denied. The order did not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.

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.