Torres v. The Blackstone Group

Background

Wilfredo Torres was representing himself and proceeding without paying filing fees. In an order dated December 7, 2023, the court dismissed his action for failure to state a claim. The court also ordered Torres to submit a declaration explaining why it should not bar him, under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, from filing future civil actions in that court without first obtaining permission. The court warned that the bar order would issue if Torres did not submit the declaration on time or if his declaration did not show good cause. The December 7 order did not enter judgment terminating the action.

After the 30-day period expired, Torres filed a notice of appeal and an application to proceed on appeal without paying filing fees. He did not submit the required declaration. The clerk’s office sent those filings to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

District Court Jurisdiction

The court explained that a notice of appeal ordinarily gives the appeals court authority over the issues being appealed and removes the district court’s control over those issues. But that rule does not apply to a defective appeal. The court concluded that Torres was attempting to appeal from a nonfinal order because the December 7 order both dismissed the complaint and directed him to explain why a filing restriction should not issue. The order had not been certified for an immediate, nonfinal appeal. The court therefore held that the notice of appeal was premature and did not remove the district court’s authority over the case.

Bar Order

Because it retained jurisdiction and Torres had not submitted a declaration opposing the restriction, the court barred him under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 from filing future civil actions without paying filing fees in the Southern District of New York unless he first obtained permission from that court. Any request for permission must include a copy of the proposed complaint and a copy of this order, and must be filed with the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit. The court stated that an action filed without the required permission would be dismissed for failure to comply with the order.

Appeal-Fee Request and Disposition

The court had already certified in its December 7 order that an appeal from that order would not be taken in good faith and had denied fee-free status for that appeal. Because Torres offered no compelling reason to reconsider that decision, the court denied his application to proceed on appeal without paying filing fees. The court also certified that an appeal from the January 23 order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for that appeal. The court noted that, because a final order had now issued, Torres’s appeal could proceed, but the request to proceed without paying fees remained denied. Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed the clerk to enter judgment dismissing the action under the December 7 order.