Williams v. United States
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-06365
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Williams v. United States, Judge Swain dismissed the action without prejudice for violating a prior filing restriction and denied IFP status for an appeal.
John T. Williams, whose action was dismissed without prejudice and whose request to proceed without paying appeal fees was denied.
What happened
Williams v. United States involved a new civil action filed by John T. Williams, who was representing himself and asked to proceed without paying filing fees.
A prior court order barred Williams from filing new civil actions without first obtaining permission. He filed this action without seeking that permission, so the court dismissed the action without prejudice. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Williams permission to proceed without paying appeal fees. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment.
The detailed version
- Williams v. United States · No. 1:22-cv-06365
- Laura Swain
- July 27, 2022
Background
John T. Williams filed a new civil action and requested permission to proceed without paying filing fees. He was representing himself. The action was originally filed in the Eastern District of New York and was transferred to the Southern District of New York.
In a prior related proceeding, the court had barred Williams from filing any new civil action in the Southern District of New York without first obtaining the court's permission to file when seeking to proceed without paying fees. Williams did not seek that permission before filing this action.
Ruling
The court dismissed the action without prejudice because Williams failed to comply with the earlier filing restriction. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.
The court also 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 fees for purposes of an appeal. The opinion does not address the merits of Williams's underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.