Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 28, 2020

Ward v. Department of Corrections

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:20-cv-09498
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

Judge McMahon dismissed Ward v. Department of Corrections without prejudice because Ward neither paid filing fees nor submitted required forms after changing facilities.

Who this affects

Timothy Ward’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice, and his request to appeal without paying fees was denied. The opinion does not state any separate relief for the Department of Corrections or the other defendants.

What happened

In Ward v. Department of Corrections, the court ordered Timothy Ward to pay the required filing fees or submit an application to proceed without paying them, along with a required prisoner authorization.

The order was returned because Ward was no longer at the facility where it was sent. Ward did not complete the required steps, notify the court of his new mailing address, or contact the court again.

Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed Ward’s complaint without prejudice. She also denied Ward permission to appeal without paying fees, finding 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
Ward v. Department of Corrections · No. 1:20-cv-09498
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Dec. 28, 2020

Background

Timothy Ward filed a civil complaint while detained at the Vernon C. Bain Center. The court directed him either to pay the $402 filing fees or submit a completed application to proceed without paying those fees and a prisoner authorization within 30 days. The court warned that failing to comply would result in dismissal.

Reason for dismissal

The court’s order was returned on December 2, 2020, with a notation that Ward was no longer held at the facility. Ward did not comply with the court’s filing-fee order, notify the court that his mailing address had changed, or contact the court further. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims in his complaint.

Ruling

The court dismissed Ward’s complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal did not bar refiling. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Ward permission to appeal without paying fees. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail the order to Ward’s last known address and record service on the docket.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.