Gunn v. Bentivegna et al
Filing
4
ORDER DIRECTING PRISONER AUTHORIZATION: Plaintiff is directed to submit a completed and signed Prisoner Authorization Form to this Court's Pro Se Office within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. 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 in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Prisoner Authorization Form due by 4/22/2020. (Signed by Judge Colleen McMahon on March 23, 2020) (Attachments: # 1 Prisoner Authorization) (jjg) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DARRELL GUNN,
Plaintiff,
-againstDR. ROBERT V. BENTIVEGNA, F.H.S.D., et al,
1:20-CV-2440 (CM)
ORDER DIRECTING PRISONER
AUTHORIZATION
Defendants.
COLLEEN McMAHON, Chief United States District Judge:
Plaintiff, currently incarcerated in the Sing Sing Correctional Facility, brings this action
pro se. To proceed with a civil action in this Court, a prisoner must either pay $400.00 in fees – a
$350.00 filing fee plus a $50.00 administrative fee – or, to request permission to proceed without
prepayment of fees, submit a signed in forma pauperis (“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 prison trust fund account. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). A prisoner
seeking to proceed in this Court without prepayment of fees must therefore also authorize the
Court to withdraw these payments from his prison trust fund account by filing a “prisoner
authorization,” which directs the facility where the prisoner is incarcerated to deduct the $350.00
filing fee 1 from the prisoner’s prison trust fund account in installments and to send to this Court
certified copies of the prisoner’s prison trust fund account statements for the past six months. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2), (b).
1
The $50.00 administrative fee for filing a federal civil action does not apply to persons
granted IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Plaintiff submitted an IFP application and a prisoner authorization, but the prisoner
authorization is inappropriate for this Court. Within thirty days of the date of this order, Plaintiff
must either pay the $400.00 in fees or complete and submit the attached prisoner authorization. If
Plaintiff submits the prisoner authorization, it should be labeled with docket number 1:20-CV2440 (CM). 2
The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on
the docket. No summons shall issue 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.
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 23, 2020
New York, New York
COLLEEN McMAHON
Chief United States District Judge
2
Plaintiff is cautioned that if a prisoner files a federal civil action or appeal that is
dismissed as malicious, frivolous, or for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted,
the dismissal is a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). A prisoner who receives three “strikes”
cannot file federal civil actions IFP as a prisoner, unless he is under imminent danger of serious
physical injury, and must pay the relevant fees at the time of filing any new federal civil action.
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?