Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 4, 2024

Dixon v. U.S. Attorney Office

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:24-cv-01519
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

Dixon v. U.S. Attorney Office: Judge Swain ordered Dixon to pay fees or apply to proceed without them, warning the case would be dismissed if he did neither.

Who this affects

Demark Dixon, whose civil action must satisfy the court’s payment-or-IFP requirement before it proceeds; the action may be dismissed if he does not comply within 30 days.

What happened

Demark Dixon v. U.S. Attorney Office concerns a civil action filed by Dixon without paying the required $405 in fees or submitting an application to proceed without prepaying them. Dixon was representing himself.

The court gave Dixon 30 days to pay the fees or complete, sign, and submit the application. No summons would issue yet. The order also said that, if Dixon was challenging his criminal conviction, he could withdraw this civil action and file a request for a special correction of the criminal case without paying these fees or submitting the application.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered Dixon to meet one of those requirements and said the action would be dismissed if he did not comply. She also denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees, ruling that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

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

Case
Dixon v. U.S. Attorney Office · No. 1:24-cv-01519
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Mar. 4, 2024

Background

Demark Dixon filed this civil action pro se, meaning without a lawyer. He submitted the complaint without paying the required $405: a $350 filing fee and a $55 administrative fee. He also did not submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), which is an application to proceed without prepaying court fees.

Court’s order

The court ordered Dixon, within 30 days of the order, to either pay the $405 or complete, sign, and submit the attached IFP application. If the court grants the application, Dixon may proceed without prepaying the fees. The application must identify docket number 1:24-CV-1519 (LTS).

The court directed that no summons issue at that time. It stated that the action would be processed through the Clerk’s Office if Dixon complied and would be dismissed if he failed to comply within the allowed time.

Possible criminal-case filing

The order states that, to the extent Dixon’s civil action seeks error coram nobis relief—a special request to correct an error in a criminal conviction—based on his criminal case, United States v. Dixon, No. 7:97-CR-0498-08 (S.D.N.Y.), he may request in writing to withdraw this civil action. He may then file a motion for that relief in the criminal case without paying fees or submitting an IFP application. The opinion does not decide whether Dixon is entitled to that relief.

Appeal-fee ruling

The court 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 IFP status for purposes of an appeal.

Disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain issued an order directing payment of fees or submission of an IFP application. The order did not dismiss the action immediately, but it stated that the action would be dismissed if Dixon did not comply within 30 days.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.