Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 7, 2021

Cross v. Department of Corrections

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:20-cv-09481
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Cross v. Department of Corrections, Judge McMahon dismissed the complaint without prejudice because Cross neither submitted required fee-waiver documents nor paid the filing fees.

Who this affects

Keemal Cross's complaint was dismissed without prejudice because he did not submit the required fee-waiver documents or pay the filing fees; permission to appeal without paying fees was also denied.

What happened

In Cross v. Department of Corrections, the court had ordered Keemal Cross to submit a request to proceed without paying court fees and a required prisoner authorization, or to pay $400 in filing fees. The order warned that failing to comply would result in dismissal.

Cross did not submit the required documents or pay the fees. The court therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling.

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

The detailed version

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

Case
Cross v. Department of Corrections · No. 1:20-cv-09481
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Jan. 7, 2021

Background

On November 13, 2020, the court directed Keemal Cross to submit a completed application to proceed without paying court fees and a prisoner authorization, or to pay the $400 required to file a civil action. The court warned that failure to comply within 30 days would result in dismissal of the complaint.

Ruling

Cross did not submit the application and prisoner authorization and did not pay the filing fees. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915.

The court also 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 permission to appeal without paying fees. The order noted that the $400 fee applied because the action was filed before the filing-fee increase that took effect on December 1, 2020.

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.