Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 1, 2022

Hurt v. U.S. Constitution

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:22-cv-04390
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Hurt v. U.S. Constitution, Judge Swain dismissed the pro se action without prejudice because Hurt did not follow a prior filing restriction.

Who this affects

Tyrone Hurt, who filed the action without a lawyer; the court dismissed his action without prejudice and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.

What happened

Tyrone Hurt filed Hurt v. U.S. Constitution without a lawyer. He neither paid the filing fees nor requested permission to proceed without paying them, so the court assumed he was seeking that permission.

A 2013 court order barred Hurt from filing any new action without paying the fees unless he first obtained the court’s permission. Hurt did not seek that permission before filing this action.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the action without prejudice because Hurt failed to comply with the earlier order. She also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying appeal fees.

The detailed version

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

Case
Hurt v. U.S. Constitution · No. 1:22-cv-04390
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
June 1, 2022

Background

Tyrone Hurt brought the action without a lawyer. He did not file a request to proceed without paying filing fees and did not pay the fees. The court therefore assumed that he was seeking permission to proceed without paying them.

The opinion states that, in an October 11, 2013 order, the court barred Hurt from filing any new action without paying the fees unless he first obtained permission from the court. Hurt had not requested that permission before filing this action.

Ruling

The court dismissed the action without prejudice because Hurt failed to comply with the October 11, 2013 order. The dismissal was based on that filing restriction; the opinion does not decide the underlying claims.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to proceed without paying fees for 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.