Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 13, 2022

Megginson v. Stukes

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:21-cv-10689
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
In one sentence

In Megginson v. Stukes, Judge Swain dismissed both complaints after Michael E. Megginson failed to file the amended complaint the court ordered.

Who this affects

Michael E. Megginson and the defendants named in his two complaints; both complaints were dismissed, and fee-free status was denied for any appeal.

What happened

In Megginson v. Stukes, the court combined two cases and ordered Michael E. Megginson to file one amended complaint within 60 days. The order warned that failing to do so would lead to dismissal for failure to state a claim.

Megginson did not file an amended complaint. The court therefore dismissed both complaints for failure to state a claim. The complaints had been filed without prepaying filing fees.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. The order was dated May 13, 2022.

The detailed version

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

Case
Megginson v. Stukes · No. 1:21-cv-10689
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
May 13, 2022

Background

The court had consolidated the two actions by an order dated February 28, 2022. It directed Michael E. Megginson to file an amended complaint in case number 21-CV-10689 within 60 days. That order stated that failing to comply would result in dismissal of both complaints for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

Ruling

Megginson did not file an amended complaint. The court dismissed both complaints for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The complaints had been filed under the statute allowing a person to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Appeal-related ruling

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.