Stevens v. Department of Corrections
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-09423
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Judge McMahon dismissed Stevens v. Department of Corrections without prejudice because Stevens did not pay fees or submit required filing materials.
Jonathan Stevens’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice because he did not comply with the filing-fee or fee-waiver requirements. The court also denied him permission to appeal without paying the appeal fee.
What happened
In Stevens v. Department of Corrections, the court required Jonathan Stevens to either pay the filing fees or submit an application to proceed without paying them, along with a required prisoner authorization.
The court had given Stevens thirty days to comply and warned that the case would be dismissed if he did not. Stevens did not comply or contact the court further.
Judge McMahon dismissed Stevens’s complaint without prejudice. She also denied Stevens permission to appeal without paying the appeal fee, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Stevens v. Department of Corrections · No. 1:20-cv-09423
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 19, 2021
Background
Jonathan Stevens, who was detained at the Vernon C. Bain Center, filed a civil complaint. The court previously ordered him to either pay the $400 filing fees or submit a completed application to proceed without paying those fees, together with a prisoner authorization. The court gave him thirty days to comply and warned that failure to do so would result in dismissal.
Compliance with the Court’s Order
Stevens did not comply with the order and did not initiate further contact with the court, either in writing or otherwise.
Ruling
Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed Stevens’s complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the appeal fee. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.