Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 6, 2022

Moncion v. Stephen Sondheim Theater

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:22-cv-01025
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Moncion v. Stephen Sondheim Theater, Judge Swain dismissed the complaint after Moncion failed to amend or update her address, and denied fee-free status for an appeal.

Who this affects

Betty M. Moncion's complaint was dismissed; the opinion does not state the effect on any underlying claims beyond that dismissal.

What happened

Moncion v. Stephen Sondheim Theater involved Betty M. Moncion’s complaint. The court had ordered her to file an amended complaint within 60 days, but the order was returned as undeliverable.

Moncion did not file the amended complaint, notify the court of a new mailing address, or contact the court further. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims or decide whether they had merit.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint under the federal law governing lawsuits filed without paying fees. The court also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.

The detailed version

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

Case
Moncion v. Stephen Sondheim Theater · No. 1:22-cv-01025
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
June 6, 2022

Background

By an order dated March 25, 2022, the court directed Betty M. Moncion to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The order warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal. On April 6, 2022, the order was returned to the court because the mail was undeliverable at the address used.

Moncion did not file the required amended complaint, notify the court that her mailing address had changed, or initiate any further contact with the court.

Ruling

The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The opinion does not identify the underlying claims or state that the court reached their merits. The complaint had been filed without paying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an 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 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.