Moore v. Preska
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:16-cv-06317
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Moore v. Preska, Judge McMahon directed Moore to stop filing documents and denied fee-free appeal status.
Wilbert Moore and any documents he might submit in this closed action; the Clerk of Court was directed not to file and to destroy violating submissions.
What happened
Moore v. Preska had been closed since August 16, 2016, but Wilbert Moore later submitted more than a dozen letters. Earlier orders had barred further filings in the closed case.
The court said it would take no action on those letters. It directed Moore not to submit more documents and instructed the Clerk not to file and to destroy any documents he submitted in violation of the orders.
Judge Colleen McMahon also denied Moore permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. The order addressed filings in a closed case rather than the underlying legal dispute.
The detailed version
- Moore v. Preska · No. 1:16-cv-06317
- Colleen McMahon
- Feb. 9, 2023
Background
The action had been closed since August 16, 2016. The court had issued several orders denying post-judgment motions. On August 13, 2018, the court barred Wilbert Moore from filing additional documents in the closed action and warned that any later submissions would not be filed and would be destroyed. Moore later submitted more than a dozen letters.
Court’s action
The court stated that it would not take any action on Moore’s letters. It directed Moore not to submit further documents for filing in the closed action. If he submitted documents in violation of the court’s orders, the Clerk of Court was directed not to file them and to destroy them.
Appeal-fee ruling and classification
The court 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 fee-free status for an appeal. This was a procedural order concerning filings and appeal status in a closed case; it did not decide the underlying dispute.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.