Rushing v. U.S. District Court, Grand Rapids Michigan
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-03559
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Rushing v. U.S. District Court, Chief Judge Swain dismissed the action without prejudice, denied pro bono counsel as moot, and denied appeal IFP status.
Shaun Rushing’s action was dismissed without prejudice because he did not obtain the required permission before filing. His request for pro bono counsel was denied as moot, and IFP status for an appeal was denied.
What happened
Shaun Rushing brought a pro se action against U.S. District Court, Grand Rapids Michigan in the Southern District of New York. He asked to proceed without paying filing fees and requested pro bono counsel.
An earlier January 3, 2022 order barred Rushing from filing any new action without first obtaining court permission to proceed without paying filing fees. The opinion states that he had not requested that permission before filing this action.
Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the action without prejudice for failing to comply with the earlier order. She denied Rushing’s request for pro bono counsel as moot and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Rushing v. U.S. District Court, Grand Rapids Michigan · No. 1:22-cv-03559
- Laura Swain
- May 4, 2022
Background
Shaun Rushing filed this pro se action against U.S. District Court, Grand Rapids Michigan. He sought permission to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), meaning without paying the required filing fees in advance, and asked the court to request pro bono counsel.
The court had previously ordered, on January 3, 2022, that Rushing could not file any new action IFP unless he first obtained leave from the court. The opinion states that Rushing filed this new case without seeking that required permission.
Rulings
The court dismissed the action without prejudice because Rushing failed to comply with the January 3 order. This disposition did not address the underlying claims.
The court denied Rushing’s application for the court to request pro bono counsel as moot.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.