Smith v. Viacom CBS, Inc.
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-09929
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Smith v. Viacom CBS, Judge McMahon dismissed Smith’s action without prejudice because she sought IFP status without required leave.
Charmane Smith’s case was dismissed without prejudice because she filed it seeking IFP status without first obtaining the required permission. The court also denied IFP status for an appeal.
What happened
In Smith v. Viacom CBS, Inc., Charmane Smith filed a new case without a lawyer against Viacom CBS, Inc. and National Amusements, Inc., and requested permission to proceed without paying filing fees.
A 2016 court order had barred Smith from filing any new fee-free case unless she first obtained the court’s permission. The opinion says Smith had not requested that permission before filing this case.
Judge McMahon dismissed the action without prejudice because Smith did not comply with the earlier order. The court also said an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Smith v. Viacom CBS, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-09929
- Colleen McMahon
- Dec. 1, 2020
Background
Charmane Smith filed this new case without a lawyer against Viacom CBS, Inc. and National Amusements, Inc. She asked to proceed without paying filing fees, a status commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP).
The court stated that, on December 2, 2016, Smith had been barred from filing any new action IFP unless she first obtained the court’s permission to file. The court also stated that Smith had not sought that permission before filing this case.
Ruling
Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action without prejudice because Smith failed to comply with the December 2, 2016 order. The court directed the Clerk of Court to mail Smith a copy of the order and record service on the docket.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.