Brodie v. Pliler

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedMay 12, 2022
Docket1:22-cv-03821
StatusUnknown

This text of Brodie v. Pliler (Brodie v. Pliler) 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
Brodie v. Pliler, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JOSEPH BRODIE; DANA MEDNICK, Petitioners, 1:22-CV-3821 (LTS) -against- ORDER DIRECTING PAYMENT OF FEE OR IFP APPLICATION WARDEN WILLIAM S. PLILER, Respondent. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Petitioners, who are proceeding pro se, bring this petition for a writ of habeas corpus. To proceed with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this court, Petitioners must either pay one $5.00 filing fee or, to request authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), each submit a completed and signed IFP application. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915. Petitioners submitted the petition without the filing fee or IFP applications. Within 30 days of the date of this order, Petitioners must either pay one $5.00 filing fee or each complete, sign, and submit a separate attached IFP application. If Petitioners submit IFP applications, they should be labeled with docket number 1:22-CV-3821 (LTS). If the Court grants the IFP applications, Petitioners will each 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 Petitioners comply with this order, this action shall be processed in accordance with the procedures of the Clerk’s Office. If Petitioners fail to comply with this order within the time allowed, this 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: May 12, 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)
Brodie v. Pliler, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brodie-v-pliler-nysd-2022.