Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 26, 2024

Mustafa v. New York City

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:23-cv-06516
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Mustafa v. New York City, Chief Judge Swain dismissed the complaint after Mustafa failed to amend it as ordered.

Who this affects

Marwan T. Mustafa's complaint was dismissed, and his permission to appeal without prepaying the filing fee was denied. The court directed entry of judgment for the action.

What happened

In Mustafa v. New York City, the court had ordered Marwan T. Mustafa to file an amended complaint by orders dated October 27, 2023, and January 16, 2024. The orders warned that failing to comply would lead to dismissal, but Mustafa did not file an amended complaint.

The court dismissed the complaint under the federal law governing complaints filed without paying the filing fee. It also denied Mustafa permission to appeal without paying the fee, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.

Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain issued the order on April 26, 2024. The opinion does not explain the underlying allegations or address their merits.

The detailed version

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

Case
Mustafa v. New York City · No. 1:23-cv-06516
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Apr. 26, 2024

Background

Marwan T. Mustafa sued New York City, the New York City Department of Correction, and unnamed individuals. The opinion does not describe the claims or the events underlying the lawsuit.

The complaint was filed without prepaying the filing fee under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). In orders dated October 27, 2023, and January 16, 2024, the court directed Mustafa to file an amended complaint. Those orders stated that failing to comply would result in dismissal. Mustafa did not file an amended complaint.

Ruling

The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The opinion does not provide additional explanation of the statutory basis for dismissal or decide the underlying claims.

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without prepaying the filing fee. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in the action.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-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.