Manko v. Lenox Hill Hospital
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-02344
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Manko v. Lenox Hill Hospital, Judge Swain dismissed the action without prejudice because Manko lacked required permission to file without paying fees.
Nella Manko’s action was dismissed without prejudice, and she was denied permission to proceed without paying fees on an appeal. The opinion does not state how the dismissal affected Lenox Hill Hospital or the other defendants beyond ending this action.
What happened
Manko v. Lenox Hill Hospital involved a new case filed by Nella Manko, who was representing herself and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. A 2013 court order required Manko to obtain permission before filing any new case without paying the fee.
Manko had not obtained that permission before filing this case. Although the complaint was labeled “Pro Se Filing – New Case – Fee Paid,” the court received neither the required filing fees nor an application to proceed without paying fees when the complaint was submitted. The court received Manko’s application the next day.
The court dismissed the action without prejudice for failing to follow the 2013 order and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. Judge Laura Taylor Swain also ruled that Manko could not proceed without paying fees on an appeal because an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Manko v. Lenox Hill Hospital · No. 1:23-cv-02344
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 31, 2023
Background
Nella Manko filed a new pro se action against Lenox Hill Hospital and other defendants. The opinion states that a July 11, 2013 order barred Manko from filing any new action without paying the filing fee unless she first obtained permission from the court. Manko sought in forma pauperis (IFP) status, which allows a person to proceed without paying filing fees, but she had not obtained the required permission.
The complaint was labeled “Pro Se Filing – New Case – Fee Paid,” but Manko did not submit the $402 filing fee or an IFP application with the complaint. The court received her IFP application on March 30, 2023.
Ruling
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, the court dismissed the action without prejudice because Manko failed to comply with the July 11, 2013 order. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. The opinion does not address the underlying claims against the defendants.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.