Rushing v. Highlands County
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-03863
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Rushing v. Highlands County, Judge Swain dismissed this action without prejudice because Rushing violated a filing restriction, and denied his counsel request.
Shaun Rushing, whose action was dismissed without prejudice for failing to comply with the court’s earlier filing restriction; the order did not decide the claims against the defendants.
What happened
Shaun Rushing filed Rushing v. Highlands County without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. The case named Highlands County, the State of Florida, and the United States of America as defendants.
The court had previously ordered that Rushing could not file a new civil action without paying the filing fee unless he first obtained the court’s permission. Because he did not obtain that permission, the court dismissed this action without prejudice. It also denied his request for pro bono counsel as no longer at issue.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for any appeal. The order did not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.
The detailed version
- Rushing v. Highlands County · No. 1:22-cv-03863
- Laura Swain
- May 12, 2022
Background
Shaun Rushing filed this civil action without a lawyer, sought permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, and applied for the court to request pro bono counsel. The defendants were Highlands County, the State of Florida, and the United States of America.
In a prior related proceeding, the court had barred Rushing from filing any new civil action without paying the filing fee unless he first obtained permission from the court. Rushing filed this action but did not seek that permission.
Ruling
The court dismissed the action without prejudice because Rushing failed to comply with the earlier filing restriction. A dismissal without prejudice does not itself bar a later filing, although the order required compliance with the earlier permission requirement. The court also denied Rushing’s application for the court to request pro bono counsel as moot.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for purposes of an appeal. The order did not reach the merits of Rushing’s claims against the defendants.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.