Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 25, 2023

Mansouri v. The US Government

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:23-cv-00785
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Mansouri v. The US Government, Judge Swain dismissed the complaint without prejudice because Mansouri neither paid filing fees nor submitted a request to proceed without paying.

Who this affects

Amine Mansouri's complaint was dismissed without prejudice because he did not submit the required IFP application or pay the filing fees. The opinion does not state whether he was represented by a lawyer.

What happened

In Mansouri v. The US Government, the court had ordered Amine Mansouri to submit a completed request to proceed without paying filing fees or pay the required filing fees.

Mansouri did neither within the required 30-day period. The order warned that failing to do so would lead to dismissal of the complaint.

Judge Swain dismissed the complaint without prejudice, meaning it was not permanently barred from being filed again. The court also ended all other pending matters, entered judgment, and denied a request to proceed without paying fees for any appeal.

The detailed version

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

Case
Mansouri v. The US Government · No. 1:23-cv-00785
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Apr. 25, 2023

Background

By an order dated February 22, 2023, the court directed Amine Mansouri to submit a completed application to proceed without paying filing fees, called an in forma pauperis (IFP) application, or pay the $402 required to file a civil action. The order warned that failure to comply within 30 days would result in dismissal.

Ruling

The court found that Mansouri had not submitted an IFP application or paid the filing fees. It therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The court also terminated all other pending matters and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.

The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. The opinion does not address the underlying claims against the defendants.

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.