Christenson v. Smith
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-00072
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Christenson v. Smith, Judge Swain dismissed the action without prejudice because Christenson did not obtain required filing permission or pay fees.
Mark C. Christenson, whose action was dismissed without prejudice and whose fee-waiver status for an appeal was denied; the defendants were not required to litigate the underlying claims in this order.
What happened
In Christenson v. Smith, Mark C. Christenson filed a new case without a lawyer. An earlier court order barred him from filing new cases using a filing-fee waiver unless he first obtained the court’s permission.
The court assumed Christenson was seeking to proceed without paying the filing fee. He did not request the required permission and did not pay the fee.
Judge Swain dismissed the action without prejudice for violating the earlier order. She also ruled that Christenson could not appeal without a filing-fee waiver because any appeal would not be taken in good faith, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.
The detailed version
- Christenson v. Smith · No. 1:24-cv-00072
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 5, 2024
Background
Mark C. Christenson filed this new case without a lawyer. The opinion states that an earlier order, dated June 20, 2018, barred him from filing any new action using a filing-fee waiver unless he first obtained permission from the court. The court assumed for purposes of this order that Christenson sought that waiver because he neither requested permission to file nor paid the filing fees.
Ruling
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, the court dismissed the action without prejudice because Christenson failed to comply with the earlier order. The opinion does not address the underlying claims. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment.
Effect
The dismissal was without prejudice, as stated by the court. The order therefore resolved this action based on Christenson’s failure to follow the earlier filing requirement, rather than on the merits of his claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.