Mourning v. Wray
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-05109
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mourning v. Wray, Judge Swain declined to reopen the case after Mourning missed filing requirements.
Jeffrey Lee Mourning's closed civil case and any appeal from this order; the court did not reach the underlying claims.
What happened
In Mourning v. Wray, the court had ordered Jeffrey Lee Mourning to pay the required filing fees or submit a completed prisoner authorization within 30 days. The court warned that failing to do so would result in dismissal.
Mourning did not pay the fees or submit the authorization by the deadline. The court therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice on July 24, 2023. Mourning later submitted the authorization, but it was filed after the deadline and he did not ask the court to reconsider the dismissal or explain the delay.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain declined to treat the late authorization as a request for reconsideration, declined to vacate the dismissal and judgment, and declined to reopen the case. The court terminated the remaining matters and denied permission to appeal without paying fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Mourning v. Wray · No. 1:23-cv-05109
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 11, 2023
Background
The court previously directed Jeffrey Lee Mourning to either pay the $402.00 filing fee for a civil action or submit a completed prisoner authorization within 30 days. The June 22, 2023 order stated that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the complaint.
Mourning later sent a letter stating that he did not intend to submit the required prisoner authorization. Because he neither paid the filing fee nor submitted the authorization within the deadline, the court dismissed his complaint without prejudice by order and judgment dated July 24, 2023.
Late Filing
On August 21, 2023, after the case had been closed, the court received Mourning's prisoner authorization. The court found the submission untimely. Mourning had not filed a motion for reconsideration or explained why he failed to meet the original deadline.
Ruling
The court declined to treat the late prisoner authorization as a motion for reconsideration or as a request to vacate the July 24 dismissal and judgment and reopen the case. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all pending matters in the closed case. The court stated that Mourning could pursue his claims by filing a new case with the required fees or with a completed request to proceed without paying the filing fee, known as an in forma pauperis request, and a prisoner authorization.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying the appellate filing fees.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.