Song v. Trustees of Columbia University in New York
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-04014
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Song v. Trustees of Columbia University, Judge Swain ordered pro se plaintiff to pay fees or submit an IFP application within 30 days.
Eugenia Song, whose case must satisfy the fee-payment or IFP-application requirement before it proceeds; the defendant is not substantively affected by this order.
What happened
In Song v. Trustees of Columbia University in New York, Eugenia Song brought a civil action without paying the required fees or submitting an application to proceed without prepaying them.
The court ordered Song, within 30 days, to pay $405 in fees or submit a signed application to proceed without prepaying fees. No summons will issue yet, and the action will be dismissed if she does not comply.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain also ruled that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Song v. Trustees of Columbia University in New York · No. 1:24-cv-04014
- Laura Swain
- June 3, 2024
Background
Eugenia Song brought the action without a lawyer. She submitted the complaint but did not pay the required filing and administrative fees and did not submit an application to proceed without prepaying fees, commonly called an IFP application.
Order
The court ordered Song to do one of two things within 30 days of the order: pay $405 in fees, consisting of a $350 filing fee and a $55 administrative fee, or submit a signed IFP application. If the court grants the IFP application, Song may proceed without prepaying the fees.
The court directed that no summons issue at that time. It stated that, if Song complies, the case will be processed under the Clerk’s Office procedures, but that the action will be dismissed if she does not comply within the allowed time.
Appeal and classification
The court certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. This order addressed filing requirements and did not decide the underlying claims in the action.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.