Murray v. City of New York
This text of Murray v. City of New York (Murray v. City of New York) 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.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ROBERT LEE MURRAY, Plaintiff, 24-CV-926 (LTS) -against- ORDER DIRECTING PAYMENT OF FEES OR IFP APPLICATION AND PRISONER CITY OF NEW YORK, AUTHORIZATION Defendant. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is currently incarcerated at Mid Hudson Forensic Psychiatric Center, brings this action pro se. To proceed with a civil action in this Court, a prisoner must either pay $405.00 in fees – a $350.00 filing fee plus a $55.00 administrative fee – or, to request authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), that is, without prepayment of fees, submit a signed IFP application and a prisoner authorization. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915. If the Court grants a prisoner’s IFP application, the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires the Court to collect the $350.00 filing fee in installments deducted from the prisoner’s account.1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). A prisoner seeking to proceed in this Court without prepayment of fees must therefore authorize the Court to withdraw these payments from his account by filing a “prisoner authorization,” which directs the facility where the prisoner is incarcerated to deduct the $350.00 filing fee from the prisoner’s account in installments and to send to the Court certified copies of the prisoner’s account statements for the past six months. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2), (b).
1 The $55.00 administrative fee for filing a civil action does not apply to persons granted IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff submitted the complaint without the filing fees or a completed IFP application and prisoner authorization. Within thirty days of the date of this order, Plaintiff must either pay the $405.00 in fees or submit the attached IFP application and prisoner authorization. If Plaintiff submits the IFP application and prisoner authorization, they should be labeled with docket number 24-CV-926 (LTS).2
It is unclear if Plaintiff qualifies as a “prisoner” for purposes of the filing fee. A prisoner is defined as “any person incarcerated or detained in any facility who is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms and conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or [a] diversionary program.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h); see, e.g., Gibson v. City Mun. of New York, 692 F.3d 198, 199 (2d Cir. 2012) (“[A] person who has been charged with a crime and is being held prior to trial under a temporary order of observation at a mental health institution, pursuant to New York state law, is a ‘prisoner’ within the meaning of the [PLRA].”). If Plaintiff is not a prisoner (and does not have a prison account), he is not required to include a prisoner authorization form and must submit only the
IFP application. No answer shall be required at this time. If Plaintiff complies with this order, the case shall be processed in accordance with the procedures of the Clerk’s Office. If Plaintiff 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.
2 Plaintiff is cautioned that if a prisoner files a federal civil action or appeal that is dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the dismissal is a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). A prisoner who has received three “strikes” must prepay the full filing fees at the time of filing any new action. 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: February 9, 2024 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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Murray v. City of New York, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murray-v-city-of-new-york-nysd-2024.