Lesane v. Doe 1 et al

Filing 3

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 Clerk of Court is directed to assign this matter to my docket. 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 7/6/2021. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 6/4/2021) (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Prisoner authorization) (scn) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK STEVEN LESANE, Plaintiff, -againstNYPD 043 PRECINCT JOHN DOE 1, et al., 21-CV-4746 (LTS) ORDER DIRECTING PRISONER AUTHORIZATION Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, currently detained in the Metropolitan Detention Center, brings this action pro se. To proceed with a civil action in this Court, a prisoner must either pay $402.00 in fees – a $350.00 filing fee plus a $52.00 administrative fee – or, to request permission 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 also 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 this Court certified copies of the prisoner’s account statements for the past six months. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2), (b). Plaintiff submitted an IFP application, but did not submit a prisoner authorization. Within thirty days of the date of this order, Plaintiff must either pay the $402.00 in fees or complete and 1 The $52.00 administrative fee for filing a civil action does not apply to persons granted IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 submit the attached prisoner authorization. If Plaintiff submits the prisoner authorization, it should be labeled with docket number 21-CV-4746 (LTS). 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: June 4, 2021 New York, New York /s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge 2 Plaintiff is cautioned that if a prisoner files a federal civil action that is dismissed as frivolous or malicious, or for failing to state a claim, 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 filing 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?