Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 28, 2022

Rushing v. Highlands County

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:22-cv-03450
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Rushing v. Highlands County, Judge Swain dismissed the action without prejudice because Shaun Rushing violated an earlier filing restriction.

Who this affects

Shaun Rushing's action against Highlands County, the State of Florida, and the United States was dismissed without prejudice. The court also denied him permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.

What happened

In Rushing v. Highlands County, Shaun Rushing filed a new case without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee or asking for permission to proceed without paying it. An earlier order had barred him from filing new cases without that permission.

The court dismissed the action without prejudice because Rushing did not comply with the earlier order. The court also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied him permission to appeal without paying the fee.

Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain issued the order on April 28, 2022.

The detailed version

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

Case
Rushing v. Highlands County · No. 1:22-cv-03450
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Apr. 28, 2022

Background

Shaun Rushing brought this action against Highlands County, the State of Florida, and the United States. He represented himself. The opinion states that an earlier order dated January 3, 2022, barred him from filing any new action without paying the filing fee unless he first obtained permission from the court.

Rushing filed this new case without paying the filing fee and without asking for the required permission. The court therefore addressed his failure to comply with the earlier filing restriction rather than the merits of his claims.

Ruling

The court dismissed the action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 because Rushing failed to comply with the January 3, 2022, order. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.

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 and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.

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.