Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 29, 2022

Clark v. Jordan

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:22-cv-04937
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Clark v. Jordan, Judge Swain dismissed the action without prejudice because Clark neither paid the filing fee nor properly completed the required fee-waiver application.

Who this affects

Jahmel Clark’s action against Lt. Jordan and the other defendants was dismissed without prejudice; Clark was also denied fee-waiver status for an appeal.

What happened

In Clark v. Jordan, the court had ordered Jahmel Clark to either pay the $402 filing fee or submit a completed application to proceed without paying it. The court required the application to explain why he could not pay.

Clark did not pay the filing fee. Although he submitted a document labeled an amended application, it did not address the problems identified in the court’s earlier order or provide the facts needed to show that he could not pay.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the action without prejudice. She also denied fee-waiver status for any appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

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

Case
Clark v. Jordan · No. 1:22-cv-04937
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Aug. 29, 2022

Background

The court’s July 6, 2022, order directed Jahmel Clark to complete, sign, and submit a corrected application to proceed without paying the filing fee, or to pay the $402 required to file a civil action. The order required Clark’s application to address previously identified deficiencies and provide facts showing why he could not pay. It warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal.

On July 25, 2022, Clark submitted a document labeled an amended application. The court found that the submission did not address the deficiencies identified in the July 6 order, except for stating that Clark did not believe his prior action and related settlement fit any of the options on the forms. It also did not provide the necessary facts showing why he could not pay the filing fee.

Ruling

Because Clark did not pay the filing fee or provide the information requested in the earlier order, the court dismissed the action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915. The opinion does not decide the merits of Clark’s claims.

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal. The court also directed that judgment issue.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.