Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 2, 2023

Thomas v. Royce

Docket
1:19-cv-06781-MKV
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Thomas v. Royce, the court denied Thomas’s petition after he failed to file the required amended petition and denied fee-free appeal status.

Who this affects

Thomas’s petition was denied because he did not file the required amended petition. His request to appeal without paying filing fees was also denied.

What happened

In Thomas v. Royce, the court had ordered Thomas to file an amended petition within 60 days. The order warned that failing to do so would result in dismissal of the petition.

Thomas did not file an amended petition. The court therefore denied the petition.

The court also found that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Thomas permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The opinion does not identify a judge; the judgment was entered by the clerk’s office.

The detailed version

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

Case
Thomas v. Royce · No. 1:19-cv-06781-MKV
Date
June 2, 2023

Background

On March 30, 2023, the court directed Thomas to file an amended petition within 60 days. The order stated that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the petition. The June 2, 2023 judgment states that Thomas did not file an amended petition.

Ruling

Because Thomas did not comply with the order, the court denied the petition. The judgment does not provide additional details about the petition’s underlying claims or explain the reasons for the March 30 order.

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the judgment would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Thomas in forma pauperis status for purposes of an appeal, meaning he could not use that status to appeal without paying the required filing fees. The judgment was entered by the clerk’s office for the court.

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.