Genao v. The City of New York
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-11186
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Genao v. The City of New York, Judge Swain dismissed the complaint without prejudice after Genao failed to submit an IFP request or pay filing fees.
Antonio Genao’s complaint against The City of New York was dismissed without prejudice; the court also denied IFP status for an appeal.
What happened
In Genao v. The City of New York, the court ordered Genao to submit a completed request to proceed without paying filing fees or to pay the required $405 filing fee.
The order was returned as undeliverable, and Genao did not comply, update his mailing address, or contact the court. The court therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not permanently bar refiling.
Judge Swain also denied permission to appeal without paying fees, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.
The detailed version
- Genao v. The City of New York · No. 1:23-cv-11186
- Laura Swain
- Feb. 29, 2024
Background
The court had previously directed Plaintiff Antonio Genao to submit, within 30 days, a completed request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), meaning a request to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance, or to pay the $405 required to file a civil action. The court warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal.
That order was returned to the court on January 17, 2024, marked undeliverable at the address Genao had provided and not forwardable. Genao did not comply with the order, notify the court of a new mailing address, or otherwise contact the court.
Ruling
The court dismissed Genao’s complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment.
Because the dismissal was based on Genao’s failure to comply with the filing-fee or IFP requirement, the order did not decide the underlying claims against the City of New York.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.