From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dorsey v. Royce

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Apr 14, 2021
21-CV-3126 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2021)

Opinion

21-CV-3126 (LTS)

04-14-2021

LEROY J. DORSEY, Plaintiff, v. MARK ROYCE, et al., Defendants.


ORDER DIRECTING PRISONER AUTHORIZATION AND ORIGINAL SIGNATURE :

Plaintiff, currently incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility, brings this action pro se seeking to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). As set forth below, the Court directs Plaintiff to submit an updated prisoner authorization and a signed signature page.

DISCUSSION

A. Prisoner Authorization

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 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).

The $50.00 administrative fee for filing a 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 does not specify the amount the Court shall collect from the Plaintiff's prison account. 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-3126 (CM).

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 IFP 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 new action. --------

B. Signature Page

Plaintiff submitted the complaint without a signature. Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "[e]very pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's name - or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented." See also Local Civil Rule 11.1(a). The Supreme Court has interpreted Rule 11(a) to require "as it did in John Hancock's day, a name handwritten (or a mark handplaced)." Becker v. Montgomery, 532 U.S. 757, 764 (2001).

Plaintiff is directed to submit the signature page of the complaint with an original signature to the Court within thirty days of the date of this order. A copy of the signature page is attached to this order.

CONCLUSION

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: April 14, 2021

New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN

Chief United States District Judge


Summaries of

Dorsey v. Royce

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Apr 14, 2021
21-CV-3126 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2021)
Case details for

Dorsey v. Royce

Case Details

Full title:LEROY J. DORSEY, Plaintiff, v. MARK ROYCE, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Apr 14, 2021

Citations

21-CV-3126 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2021)