Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 19, 2021

Pacheco v. United States

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:20-cv-09384
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Pacheco v. United States, Judge McMahon dismissed the complaint without prejudice after Pacheco failed to submit an amended fee-waiver application or pay filing fees.

Who this affects

Rodolfo Pacheco’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice because he neither submitted the required amended fee-waiver application nor paid the filing fee. The court also denied fee-waiver status for an appeal.

What happened

Pacheco v. United States concerned Rodolfo Pacheco’s failure to complete the steps required to proceed without paying the filing fee or to pay the fee for his civil case.

The court had given Pacheco thirty days to submit an amended application to proceed without paying fees or to pay the required $400. He did neither.

Judge McMahon dismissed the complaint without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling. She also denied fee-waiver status for any appeal, 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
Pacheco v. United States · No. 1:20-cv-09384
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Jan. 19, 2021

Background

The court previously ordered Rodolfo Pacheco to submit, within thirty days, an amended application to proceed without paying filing fees or to pay the $400 required to file a civil action. The order warned that failing to comply would result in dismissal of the complaint.

Court’s Ruling

Pacheco did not submit an amended application and did not pay the filing fees. The court therefore 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 consequently denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal. The opinion’s footnote explains that the $400 fee applied because the action was filed before December 1, 2020, when the filing fees increased to $402.

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.