Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 12, 2022

Chan v. Medicare

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:22-cv-03748
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Chan v. Medicare, Judge Swain dismissed the action without prejudice because Chan did not pay the required filing fees.

Who this affects

Lap-Sun Chan's action against Medicare and the other defendants was dismissed without prejudice. Chan was also denied permission to appeal without paying the required fees.

What happened

In Chan v. Medicare, the court had ordered Lap-Sun Chan to pay $402 to file the civil action within 30 days. The order warned that failing to pay would result in dismissal.

Chan did not pay the required fees. The court therefore dismissed the action without prejudice, meaning it was not permanently barred from being filed again on that basis.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Chan permission to appeal without paying the required fees. The opinion does not address the underlying claims against Medicare or the other defendants.

The detailed version

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

Case
Chan v. Medicare · No. 1:22-cv-03748
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
July 12, 2022

Background

Lap-Sun Chan brought an action against Medicare and other defendants. The opinion does not describe the claims' underlying facts or legal theories.

Filing-fee order

On May 10, 2022, the court ordered Chan to pay the $402 filing fee required to start a civil action in the court. The order gave Chan 30 days to pay and stated that failing to comply would result in dismissal.

Ruling

The court found that Chan had not paid the filing fee and dismissed the action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1914. The opinion does not address the merits of Chan's claims.

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 permission to appeal without paying the required fees. The opinion cites an earlier Supreme Court decision explaining that good faith exists when an appellant seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue.

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.