Christenson v. White
Christenson v. White
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MARK C. CHRISTENSON, Plaintiff, 20-CV-1623 (CM) ~against- ORDER OF DISMISSAL BILL WHITE, UNDER
28 U.S.C. § 1651Defendant. COLLEEN McMAHON, Chief United States District Judge: On June 20, 2018, Plaintiff was barred from filing any new action in forma pauperis without first receiving the Court’s permission to file. See Christenson v. Roe, ECF 1:18- CV-3319, 3 (S.D.N.Y. June 20, 2018). Plaintiff files this new pro se case, but he does not seek leave to proceed IFP nor does he pay the filing fees. The Court assumes for the purpose of this order that he seeks to proceed IFP. Because Plaintiff has not requested or received permission from the Court to file this action, it is dismissed without prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the June 20, 2018 order. 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: February 26, 2020 , New York, New York huh Wyk Chief United States District Judge
Reference
- Status
- Unknown