Sabet v. S.D.N.Y.
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-07979
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Sabet v. S.D.N.Y., Judge Swain dismissed Sabet’s action without prejudice for violating a filing bar and denied fee-free appeal status.
Samuel Arthur Sabet, who filed the action without a lawyer, and the defendants identified as S.D.N.Y. and others. The order also affects Sabet’s ability to appeal without paying filing fees.
What happened
In Sabet v. S.D.N.Y., Samuel Arthur Sabet filed a new case without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying filing fees. The case was brought against S.D.N.Y. and other defendants.
The court said a January 31, 2008 judgment barred Sabet from filing new actions without first getting the court’s permission. Because Sabet had not requested that permission, the court dismissed this action without prejudice. The court also said the lawsuit continued Sabet’s pattern of frivolous and non-meritorious litigation.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed that judgment enter and denied Sabet permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Sabet v. S.D.N.Y. · No. 1:22-cv-07979
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 19, 2022
Background
Samuel Arthur Sabet filed this action without a lawyer and applied to proceed without paying filing fees. The defendants are identified in the caption as S.D.N.Y. and others.
The court relied on a January 31, 2008 judgment in a prior related proceeding. That judgment barred Sabet from filing any new actions without first obtaining the court’s permission to file. Sabet did not seek that permission before filing this action.
Ruling
The court dismissed the action without prejudice because Sabet failed to comply with the filing restriction. The court also stated that, even if Sabet had complied with the restriction, the suit was consistent with his pattern of frivolous and non-meritorious litigation.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Sabet permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal. The court ordered that judgment enter. The order did not address the merits of the underlying claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.