Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 3, 2022

Sanderson v. Voss Events, Inc.

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:22-cv-02550
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Sanderson v. Voss Events, Inc., Judge Swain dismissed the complaint without prejudice after Sanderson neither requested a fee waiver nor paid the filing fee.

Who this affects

Matthew Sanderson's complaint was dismissed without prejudice because he neither submitted the required IFP application nor paid the $402 filing fee. The court also denied IFP status for an appeal.

What happened

In Sanderson v. Voss Events, Inc., Matthew Sanderson brought a civil complaint against Voss Events, Inc. and New York Spaces, Inc.

The court had ordered Sanderson to submit a completed request to proceed without paying filing fees or pay the $402 filing fee within 30 days. Sanderson did neither.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint without prejudice. She also denied fee-waiver status for any appeal after finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

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

Case
Sanderson v. Voss Events, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-02550
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
May 3, 2022

Background

Matthew Sanderson, identified in the caption as also known as DETOX, sued Voss Events, Inc. and New York Spaces, Inc.

Filing-fee requirement

On April 1, 2022, the court ordered Sanderson either to submit a completed request to proceed without paying filing fees, commonly called an IFP application, or to pay the $402 required filing fee within 30 days. The order warned that failing to comply would result in dismissal.

Sanderson did not submit an IFP application and did not pay the filing fee.

Ruling

The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal.

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.