Dupigny v. United States
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-05346
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Dupigny v. United States, Judge Stanton granted more time to pay fees or apply to proceed without prepaying, warning of dismissal for noncompliance.
Hubert Dupigny, the self-represented detained plaintiff, received additional time to satisfy the filing-fee or fee-waiver requirements but was warned that the action would be dismissed without prejudice if he failed to comply.
What happened
In Dupigny v. United States, Hubert Dupigny, who was detained and representing himself, asked for another extension to meet the Court’s requirements for paying the filing fees or applying to proceed without prepaying them.
The Court granted the extension and gave Dupigny 30 days to pay the $400 filing fees or submit an application and authorization for proceeding without prepaying fees. The Court stated that it would grant no further extensions.
Judge Louis Stanton’s order warned that the action would be dismissed without prejudice if Dupigny did not comply. The Court also denied him permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Dupigny v. United States · No. 1:20-cv-05346
- Louis Stanton
- Oct. 14, 2020
Background
Hubert Dupigny brought this action against the United States of America and other named defendants while detained at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York. He was representing himself.
The Court had previously directed Dupigny to either pay the $400 fees required to bring a civil action or submit an application to proceed without prepaying fees, together with a prisoner authorization. After the Court granted one earlier extension, Dupigny requested another extension by letter.
Ruling
The Court granted Dupigny’s request for an additional extension. It directed him to pay the $400 fees or submit the required application and prisoner authorization within 30 days of the order. The Court stated that it would grant no further extensions.
The Court further stated that if Dupigny failed to comply within the allowed time, it would dismiss the action without prejudice. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal would not bar refiling based on that dismissal alone.
The Court directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Dupigny and record service on the docket. It also 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 prepaying fees for an appeal.
Disposition
The request for another extension was granted. No final ruling on the underlying claims was made in this order.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.