Reed v. Massett
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 12/20/2021. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 11/19/21) (Attachments: #1 Supplement plra) (bl) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-againstOFFICER L. MASSETT,
ORDER DIRECTING PRISONER
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge:
Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility, 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 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. 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 1 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. By
order dated September 27, 2021, the Court directed Plaintiff to either pay the $402.00 in fees or
The $52.00 administrative fee for filing a civil action does not apply to persons granted
IFP status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
complete and submit a prisoner authorization. On November 18, 2021, the Court received a letter
from Plaintiff, but he has not yet submitted the prisoner authorization.
Within thirty days of the date of this order, Plaintiff must either pay the $402.00 in fees or
complete and submit the attached prisoner authorization. If Plaintiff submits the prisoner
authorization, it should be labeled with docket number 21-CV-8002 (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 in forma pauperis 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).
November 19, 2021
New York, New York
/s/ Laura Taylor Swain
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN
Chief United States District Judge
Plaintiff is cautioned that if a prisoner files an action that is dismissed as frivolous 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 actions in forma pauperis as a prisoner, unless he is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury, and must pay the filing fee at the time of filing any
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?