Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 10, 2023

Jackson v. DOJ

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:23-cv-03623
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Jackson v. DOJ, Judge Swain dismissed Henry Jackson’s new action without prejudice because he had not obtained required filing permission.

Who this affects

Henry Jackson’s new civil action against DOJ was dismissed without prejudice because he did not obtain the required permission to file.

What happened

In Jackson v. DOJ, Henry Jackson filed a new civil action against DOJ and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee. He filed the case without a lawyer.

A 2019 order had barred Jackson from filing any new civil action in this court without first obtaining permission from the court to file. Jackson did not seek that permission before filing this action.

The court dismissed the action without prejudice because Jackson did not comply with the earlier filing restriction. Judge Swain also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Jackson permission to proceed without paying the filing fee on appeal. The clerk was directed to enter judgment.

The detailed version

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

Case
Jackson v. DOJ · No. 1:23-cv-03623
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
May 10, 2023

Background

Henry Jackson filed this new civil action against DOJ and requested permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. The opinion identifies Jackson as proceeding without a lawyer.

Prior Filing Restriction

The court stated that, on April 23, 2019, Jackson had been barred from filing any new civil action in the Southern District of New York without first obtaining leave of court. The opinion refers to that matter as a prior related proceeding. Jackson filed this action without first seeking the required permission.

Ruling

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, the court dismissed this action without prejudice for failure to comply with the earlier filing order. The opinion does not address the merits of Jackson’s claims against DOJ. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal. The clerk was directed to enter judgment.

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.