Blanding v. Miller

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedMarch 30, 2022
Docket1:22-cv-02293
StatusUnknown

This text of Blanding v. Miller (Blanding v. Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Blanding v. Miller, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DAVID GRANT/BLANDING, Petitioner, 22-CV-2293 (LTS) -against- ORDER DIRECTING PAYMENT OF FEE OR IFP APPLICATION SUPT. MILLER, GREEN HAVEN C.F., Respondent. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Petitioner, proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus. To proceed with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this Court, a petitioner must either pay the $5.00 filing fee or, to request authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), that is, without prepayment of fees, submit a signed IFP application. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915. Petitioner submitted the petition without the filing fee or an IFP application. Within thirty days of the date of this order, Petitioner must either pay the $5.00 filing fee or complete and submit the attached IFP application. If Petitioner submits the IFP application, it should be labeled with docket number 22-CV-2293 (LTS). If the Court grants the IFP application, Petitioner will be permitted to proceed without prepayment of fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). No answer shall be required at this time. If Petitioner complies with this order, the case shall be processed in accordance with the procedures of the Clerk’s Office. If Petitioner fails to comply with this order within the time allowed, the action will be dismissed. The Court certifies under 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. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962) (holding that appellant demonstrates good faith when seeking review of a nonfrivolous issue). SO ORDERED. Dated: March 30, 2022 New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Blanding v. Miller, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blanding-v-miller-nysd-2022.