Pettus v. Clark et al

Filing 6

ORDER OF DISMISSAL UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1651... The Court therefore dismisses this action without prejudice due to Plaintiff's failure to comply with the court's February 4, 2005 judgment in Pettus, 1:05-CV-1439, 5. All pending request s and motions are denied. 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 Stat es, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Court directs the Clerk of Court to enter a judgment dismissing this action for the reason set forth in this order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 3/10/25) (yv) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
JAMES PETTUS,
Plaintiff,
-againstADA RANDOLPH CLARK JR., et al.,

1:25-CV-1451 (LTS)
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1651

Defendants.
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge:
Plaintiff James Pettus, who is not currently incarcerated, filed this action pro se, seeking
to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 1 In a judgment dated February 4, 2005, and entered on
February 24, 2005, however, the court barred Plaintiff, when not a prisoner, from filing future
civil actions in this court without first obtaining from the court leave to file. 2 See Pettus v.
Clarke, 1:05-CV-1439, 5 (MBM) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2005) (electronic docket entry), appeal
dismissed as frivolous, No. 05-1314 (2d Cir. Sept. 29, 2005) (same). Plaintiff files this new civil
action in this court and seeks IFP status, but he has not sought leave from the court to file this
action. The Court therefore dismisses this action without prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to
comply with the court’s February 4, 2005 judgment in Pettus, 1:05-CV-1439, 5. All pending
requests and motions are denied.
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).
1

The Court construes Plaintiff’s submissions filed after his complaint and IFP application
(ECF 4 & 5) as supplements to his complaint.
2

That same judgment recognized Plaintiff as barred, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), from
filing federal civil actions IFP, while he is a prisoner, unless he is under imminent danger of
serious physical injury.

The Court directs the Clerk of Court to enter a judgment dismissing this action for the
reason set forth in this order.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 10, 2025
New York, New York
/s/ Laura Taylor Swain
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN
Chief United States District Judge

2