Ryzhov v. $5
Ryzhov v. $5,379,876.94 In United States Currency Formerly on Deposit in Sunflower Bank, NA
- Jesse Furman
- 1:23-cv-01072
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ryzhov v. Currency, Judge Furman denied an attempt to reopen the case because the amended fee-waiver application remained incomplete.
Evgeny Ryzhov, whose request to reopen or reconsider the dismissal was denied and whose fee-waiver status for an appeal was denied.
What happened
In Ryzhov v. $5,379,876.94 in United States Currency, the court had ordered Evgeny Ryzhov to file a corrected application to waive the filing fee. The court wanted him to explain the size of a reported gift and why another application in a different case said he had received no gifts.
The court had dismissed the case after Ryzhov did not file the corrected application or pay the filing fee. He later filed an amended application, but it still did not provide the gift’s amount or explain the inconsistency. The court said the filing could be treated as a request to reopen the case or to reconsider the dismissal, but denied that request.
Judge Furman said Ryzhov may still move to reopen the case within 60 days if he pays the filing fee. The court also ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Ryzhov v. $5 · No. 1:23-cv-01072
- Jesse Furman
- Apr. 21, 2023
Background
The court had ordered Evgeny Ryzhov to submit an amended application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The original application did not state the size of a gift that Ryzhov reported and did not explain why an application in a different case stated that he had received no gifts.
On April 20, 2023, the court dismissed the case because Ryzhov had not filed the amended application or paid the filing fee. The court stated that he could move to reopen the case within 60 days if he paid the filing fee.
Ruling
Ryzhov filed an amended fee-waiver application on April 21, 2023. The court found that it was filed after the April 16 deadline and still did not identify the gift’s amount or explain the inconsistency between the two applications. To the extent the filing was treated as a motion to reopen or a motion asking the court to reconsider its dismissal, the court denied the motion.
The court reiterated that Ryzhov could move to reopen within 60 days upon payment of the filing fee. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied the fee waiver for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.