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

Somarge v. New York State Revenue Department

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:21-cv-01102
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Somarge v. New York State Revenue Department, Judge McMahon dismissed the complaint without prejudice because Somarge neither filed a fee-waiver application nor paid the filing fee.

Who this affects

Kalup Somarge, whose complaint was dismissed without prejudice after he did not submit the required fee-waiver application or pay the filing fee. The New York State Revenue Department was the named defendant, but the court did not reach the claims against it.

What happened

In Somarge v. New York State Revenue Department, the court ordered Kalup Somarge to submit a completed application to proceed without paying filing fees or to pay the $402 filing fee within 30 days. The order warned that failing to do so would result in dismissal.

Somarge did not submit the fee-waiver application or pay the filing fee. The opinion does not address the underlying claims in the complaint.

Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the complaint without prejudice. She also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal.

The detailed version

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

Case
Somarge v. New York State Revenue Department · No. 1:21-cv-01102
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
May 19, 2021

Background

On March 26, 2021, the court directed Kalup Somarge to either submit a completed application to proceed without paying filing fees, commonly called an IFP application, or pay the $402 required fee for filing a civil action. The court warned that failure to comply within 30 days would result in dismissal of the complaint.

What the Court Did

Somarge did not submit the IFP application and did not pay the filing fee. The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, the opinion states that the dismissal did not bar refiling, although it does not describe any further filing requirements.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. The ruling did not reach the merits of Somarge's claims.

Other Case Information

The opinion states that Somarge did not provide a physical or email address, so the Clerk of Court could not send a copy of the order. It directed the Clerk to provide a copy if Somarge appeared in person at the courthouse. Judge Colleen McMahon signed the order.

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.