Rushing v. U.S. District Court
- Laura Swain
- 1:21-cv-03200
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Rushing v. U.S. District Court: Judge Swain dismissed Shaun Rushing’s complaint as frivolous and denied fee-free appeal status.
Shaun Rushing’s complaint was dismissed, and he was denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The opinion also identifies the U.S. District Court Western District Grand Rapids as the listed defendant.
What happened
In Rushing v. U.S. District Court, Shaun Rushing, representing himself, challenged an order from the Western District of Michigan that he said barred him from using or accessing that court. He sought $110 trillion in damages.
The Southern District of New York explained that it had no authority to review another federal district court’s decisions. It also found that the complaint named no defendants, cited no legal basis for damages, and alleged no facts supporting a valid claim.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint as frivolous under the federal filing-fee statute and denied permission to appeal without paying fees, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The court did not allow an amended complaint because it found the defects could not be fixed.
The detailed version
- Rushing v. U.S. District Court · No. 1:21-cv-03200
- Laura Swain
- Apr. 26, 2021
Background
Shaun Rushing filed a one-page complaint without a lawyer. The complaint did not have a caption or name any defendants, although his fee-waiver application listed the “U.S. District Court Western District Grand Rapids” as the defendant. Rushing alleged that he had been permanently barred from using the court and denied access to it, which he characterized as violations of constitutional rights and due process. He requested $110 trillion in damages.
The court had allowed Rushing to proceed without paying the filing fees in advance. It therefore reviewed the complaint under the federal statute requiring dismissal of a fee-waived complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. A frivolous claim is one with no arguable legal or factual basis.
Court’s analysis
The court read the complaint liberally because Rushing was representing himself. It understood the complaint as challenging an order issued by the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. But the Southern District of New York held that it had no appellate or supervisory authority over another federal district court. Appeals from a federal district court generally go to the court of appeals covering that district.
The court also found that Rushing cited no legal basis for seeking damages from the defendant district court or for bringing the case in the Southern District of New York. In addition, the complaint alleged no facts showing a viable claim. The court therefore concluded that the complaint lacked a basis in law or fact.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). It declined to give Rushing permission to amend because it found that the defects could not be cured by amendment. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waived status for any appeal. Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the Clerk to mail Rushing a copy of the order and record service on the docket.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.