Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 17, 2023

Mikanda v. Trump

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:23-cv-08359
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Mikanda v. Trump, Judge Swain denied requests to withdraw a filing-fee order and denied a fee waiver for any appeal.

Who this affects

Neyembo Mikanda, the self-represented plaintiff, remains subject to the order requiring payment of $402 in fees or submission of an application to proceed without paying them; fee-waiver status was also denied for an appeal from this order.

What happened

In Mikanda v. Trump, the court had ordered Neyembo Mikanda, who was representing themself, to pay $402 in fees or apply to proceed without paying those fees.

Mikanda filed three submissions that appeared to ask the court to withdraw its earlier order. The submissions were filed on October 5, 2023.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied those requests and left the September 21, 2023 order in effect. She also ruled that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal.

The detailed version

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

Case
Mikanda v. Trump · No. 1:23-cv-08359
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Oct. 17, 2023

Background

Neyembo Mikanda appeared without a lawyer. On September 21, 2023, the court ordered Mikanda, within 30 days, either to pay the $402 fees required to bring the civil action or to submit an application to proceed without paying those fees. That type of application is commonly called an application to proceed in forma pauperis, or IFP.

Mikanda’s Requests

On October 5, 2023, Mikanda filed three submissions. The court stated that Mikanda seemed to be asking it to withdraw the September 21 order.

Ruling

The court denied those requests. The September 21 order therefore remained in effect. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. The order did not address the underlying merits of the civil action.

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.