Christenson v. Khristianson

District Court, S.D. New York

Christenson v. Khristianson

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MARK C. CHRISTENSON, Plaintiff, 19-CV-11965 (CM) -against- ORDER OF DISMISSAL MICHAEL KHRISTIANSON, UNDER

28 U.S.C. § 1651

Defendant. COLLEEN McMAHON, Chief United States District Judge: On June 20, 2018, the Court barred Plaintiff from filing any new civil action in this Court in forma pauperis (IFP) without first obtaining from the Court leave to file. See Christenson v. Roe, ECF 1:18-CV-3319, 3 (S.D.N.Y. June 20, 2018). Plaintiff has neither paid the relevant fees to bring this action nor filed an application to proceed IFP. Because Plaintiff has not paid the fees, the only other way he can proceed is by seeking IFP status. See

28 U.S.C. §§ 1914

, 1915. The Court therefore understands this action as one in which Plaintiff seeks to proceed IFP. But because he has not sought the Court’s leave to proceed with this action IFP, the Court dismisses this action without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s June 20, 2018 order in Christenson, ECF 1:18-CV-3319, 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket. The Court certifies, pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States,

369 U.S. 438, 444-45

(1962). SO ORDERED. Dated: January 6, 2020 , New York, New York hie. I hich Chief United States District Judge

Reference

Status
Unknown