Marin v. The Chancellor
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-02839
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Marin v. The Chancellor, Judge Swain denied Marin’s motions and required payment or an amended fee-waiver application.
Mel Marin, whose case must be supported by payment of the filing fee or an amended fee-waiver application before it can proceed; the order also affects the status of the case against The Chancellor and Oxford University.
What happened
In Marin v. The Chancellor, Mel Marin asked the court to reconsider the denial of permission to seal financial records and to certify an earlier order for immediate appeal. He also asked the court to pause this case while an appeal in another case was decided.
The court denied both motions. It said Marin did not need to submit financial records to seek a waiver of the filing fee and therefore had not shown the exceptional circumstances required for an immediate appeal.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain gave Marin a final 30-day opportunity to either pay the $402 filing fee or submit an amended fee-waiver application. No summons will issue, and the court said it will terminate the matter without prejudice if Marin does not comply and does not show good cause.
The detailed version
- Marin v. The Chancellor · No. 1:22-cv-02839
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 3, 2022
Background
On June 15, 2022, the court directed Mel Marin to pay the $402 filing fee or submit an amended application to proceed without paying the fee. Marin then moved to seal financial records that he wanted to use to support his fee-waiver request and moved to amend the June 15 order. On July 18, 2022, the court denied those motions, explained that Marin did not need to submit financial records, and gave him an additional 30 days to submit an amended application.
Marin later filed two more motions. One sought certification of the fee-related issue for an immediate appeal or reconsideration of the denial of his sealing request. The other sought to pause this case while an appeal in another case, identified in the opinion as Marin v. Yale, was decided.
Court’s analysis
The court applied 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), which governs certification of an interlocutory appeal—an appeal before the district court has entered a final judgment. Certification requires a controlling legal question, substantial disagreement about that question, and a likelihood that immediate review would materially advance the end of the litigation. The court noted that such appeals are strongly disfavored and that the party requesting one bears the burden of satisfying these requirements.
The court concluded that Marin had not met that burden. It had already told him that he did not need to submit financial records or account numbers and only needed to complete the same fee-waiver application used by other litigants seeking relief from filing fees. Because the court was not requiring him to submit financial records, it held that he was not entitled to an order allowing those records to be filed under seal. The court therefore found no exceptional circumstances supporting an immediate appeal.
Disposition
The court denied Marin’s motions and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate them. It granted Marin a final opportunity to comply with the June 15 order within 30 days by either paying the $402 filing fee or submitting an amended fee-waiver application. No summons will issue. If Marin fails to submit the amended application and does not show good cause for the failure, the court will enter a civil judgment consistent with the order and direct the Clerk to terminate the matter without prejudice.
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, so fee-waiver status was denied for purposes of an appeal. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.