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

Johnson v. Tunecore

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:22-cv-06460
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Johnson v. Tunecare, Judge Swain dismissed the action without prejudice because Johnson filed without first obtaining required court permission.

Who this affects

Robert W. Johnson's action was dismissed without prejudice, and he was denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal. Tunecare and the other defendants were not required to litigate the underlying claims in this order.

What happened

Robert W. Johnson filed a new lawsuit against Tunecare and others without a lawyer. A previous order had barred him from filing new civil actions without paying the filing fee unless he first obtained permission from the court. Johnson did not seek that permission and submitted an incomplete request to proceed without paying the fee.

The court dismissed the action without prejudice because Johnson failed to follow the earlier order. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.

The court further ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Johnson permission to proceed without paying the appeal fee. Judge Laura Taylor Swain issued the order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Johnson v. Tunecore · No. 1:22-cv-06460
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Aug. 1, 2022

Background

Robert W. Johnson filed a new civil action against Tunecare and others while representing himself. The opinion states that, in a July 10, 2020 order in a prior related proceeding, the court barred Johnson from filing any new civil action in the Southern District of New York without paying the filing fee unless he first obtained leave, meaning permission, from the court. Johnson filed this action with an incomplete application to proceed without paying the filing fee, but he did not ask for permission to file.

The opinion notes that the application was missing page two.

Ruling

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, the court dismissed the action without prejudice because Johnson failed to comply with the July 10, 2020 order. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. The order does not address the underlying claims against Tunecare or the other defendants.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Johnson permission to proceed without paying the filing fee 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.