Rushing v. State of Michigan
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-03431
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Rushing v. State of Michigan, Judge Swain dismissed Shaun Rushing’s case without prejudice and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal.
Shaun Rushing’s case was dismissed without prejudice because he did not obtain the permission required before filing a new fee-waiver action. The State of Michigan was the named defendant, but the court did not decide the underlying claims.
What happened
Rushing v. State of Michigan involved Shaun Rushing, who filed the case without a lawyer and requested permission to proceed without paying filing fees. An earlier court order barred him from filing new fee-waiver cases unless he first obtained the court’s permission.
Rushing had not requested that permission before filing this case. The court therefore dismissed the action without prejudice for violating the earlier order.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal. The opinion did not decide the underlying claims against the State of Michigan.
The detailed version
- Rushing v. State of Michigan · No. 1:22-cv-03431
- Laura Swain
- Apr. 28, 2022
Background
Shaun Rushing filed this case without a lawyer and requested permission to proceed without paying the filing fees. The court stated that, under an order issued on January 3, 2022, Rushing was barred from filing any new action with that fee-waiver request unless he first obtained leave from the court. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims against the State of Michigan.
Court’s ruling
Rushing filed this action without first seeking the required permission. The court dismissed the action without prejudice because he failed to comply with the January 3 order. A dismissal without prejudice does not bar refiling, although the opinion states that the earlier permission requirement remained applicable.
Appeal and effect
Judge Laura Taylor Swain certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. The court therefore denied Rushing permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal. The court did not reach the merits of Rushing’s claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.