Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 30, 2023

STEPHENS v. GREYSTAR

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:23-cv-02541
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Stephens v. Greystar, Judge Swain dismissed the complaint without prejudice because Stephens neither requested a fee waiver nor paid the filing fee.

Who this affects

Kalyn Stephens's complaint was dismissed without prejudice because Stephens did not submit the required fee-waiver application or pay the filing fee. Greystar was the defendant.

What happened

In Stephens v. Greystar, the court had ordered Kalyn Stephens to submit a completed application to proceed without paying filing fees or to pay the required $402 fee. Stephens instead appealed that order, and the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal.

Because Stephens did not submit the application or pay the fee, the district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice. This means the dismissal did not permanently bar the complaint from being filed again. The court also directed the Clerk to enter judgment.

The court, led by Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain, said any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Stephens permission to appeal without paying fees.

The detailed version

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

Case
STEPHENS v. GREYSTAR · No. 1:23-cv-02541
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Aug. 30, 2023

Background

Kalyn Stephens brought this action against Greystar. The action was originally filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, which transferred it to the Southern District of New York.

On March 27, 2023, the court ordered Stephens, within 30 days, either to submit a completed application to proceed without paying filing fees, commonly called an IFP application, or to pay the $402 filing fee required for a civil action. The order warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal. Stephens filed a notice of interlocutory appeal from that order on April 25, 2023. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal by mandate dated August 3, 2023.

Ruling

The court found that Stephens had not submitted an IFP application or paid the filing fee. It therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915.

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the dismissal would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.