Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 11, 2022

Rushing v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:22-cv-07696
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Rushing v. Commissioner, Judge Swain dismissed the action without prejudice because Rushing did not obtain required permission to file without paying fees.

Who this affects

Shaun Akindo Alexander Rushing, who filed the action without a lawyer; the action against the Commissioner of Social Security was dismissed without prejudice.

What happened

Rushing v. Commissioner of Social Security was filed by Shaun Akindo Alexander Rushing without a lawyer. The court had previously barred Rushing from filing new cases without paying fees unless he first received permission. Rushing filed this case without paying the fees or submitting an application to proceed without paying them.

The court treated the complaint as a request to proceed without paying fees. Because Rushing had not requested the required permission, the court dismissed the action without prejudice. The opinion did not address the underlying Social Security matter.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying fees. She directed the court clerk to enter judgment.

The detailed version

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

Case
Rushing v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:22-cv-07696
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Oct. 11, 2022

Background

On January 3, 2022, the court had ordered that Shaun Akindo Alexander Rushing could not file any new civil action without paying the filing fees unless he first obtained permission from the court. On September 7, 2022, Rushing filed this civil action without paying the fees and without submitting an application to proceed without paying them. Because he was proceeding without a lawyer and had not paid the fees, the court treated his complaint as a request to proceed without paying fees.

Ruling

The court dismissed the action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 because Rushing had not complied with the earlier order requiring him to obtain permission before filing. The court did not decide the merits of the Social Security claims. It directed the clerk of court to enter judgment.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying fees.

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.