Scales v. Newtek One
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-07604
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Scales v. Newtek One, Judge Swain dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction after Scales failed to amend it as ordered.
William Scales’s complaint was dismissed, and his permission to proceed without prepaying fees was denied for purposes of an appeal.
What happened
In Scales v. Newtek One, the court had ordered William Scales on January 2, 2024, to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The order warned that failing to do so would result in dismissal.
Scales did not file an amended complaint. The court therefore dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Scales permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Scales v. Newtek One · No. 1:23-cv-07604
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 15, 2024
Background
On January 2, 2024, the court ordered William Scales to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The order expressly stated that the complaint would be dismissed if he did not comply. The opinion does not describe the claims in the original complaint or explain the underlying jurisdictional defect.
Court’s ruling
Scales did not file an amended complaint. The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). This was a threshold ruling; the opinion does not address the merits of the complaint’s claims. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.
Appeal-related ruling
The complaint had been filed under a status allowing Scales to proceed without prepaying filing fees. The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied that fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal. The opinion cites a Supreme Court decision explaining that good faith exists when an appellant seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.