Song v. Coleman
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-04526
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Song v. Coleman, Judge Swain dismissed the complaint without prejudice because Song neither paid filing fees nor submitted an IFP application.
Eugenia Song’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice after she neither submitted the required fee-waiver application nor paid the filing fees; permission to proceed without paying fees on appeal was also denied.
What happened
Song v. Coleman was dismissed after Eugenia Song did not follow the court’s order to submit an application to proceed without paying filing fees or to pay the required filing fees.
The court had given Song thirty days to comply and warned that failing to do so would lead to dismissal. Song did neither, so the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, meaning the opinion did not bar refiling.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain also denied Song permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. The clerk was directed to enter judgment.
The detailed version
- Song v. Coleman · No. 1:23-cv-04526
- Laura Swain
- July 17, 2023
Background
By an order dated June 1, 2023, the court directed Plaintiff Eugenia Song, within thirty days, either to submit a completed application to proceed without paying filing fees or to pay the $402.00 required to file a civil action. The order warned that failing to comply would result in dismissal of the complaint.
Court’s Action
Song did not submit the application and did not pay the filing fees. The court therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915. The dismissal did not resolve the underlying claims.
Appeal and Judgment
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The clerk was directed to enter judgment. Because the dismissal was based on failure to satisfy the filing-fee or fee-waiver requirement, the court did not address the merits of the complaint.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.