Ouedraogo v. Garland
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:24-cv-04815
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Ouedraogo v. Garland, Judge Swain ordered Stanislas Ouedraogo to pay $405 or submit an IFP application within 30 days.
Stanislas Ouedraogo, whose case was required to satisfy the filing-fee requirement or submit an application to proceed without prepaying fees.
What happened
In Ouedraogo v. Garland, the court directed Stanislas Ouedraogo to either pay the required fees for his civil case or request permission to proceed without paying them in advance.
The court gave Ouedraogo 30 days to pay $405 or submit a completed and signed application showing that he could not afford the fees. Until payment or an application was received, the case would not proceed, and no summons or answer would be required.
The order states that failing to comply, or failing to request more time, would result in dismissal without prejudice to refiling. Judge Laura Taylor Swain also denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Ouedraogo v. Garland · No. 1:24-cv-04815
- Ronnie Abrams
- June 27, 2024
Background
Stanislas Ouedraogo submitted this civil action to the court by email. The order does not describe the underlying claims.
Order
The court explained that a person starting a civil action must either pay the required fees or submit a signed application to proceed without paying fees in advance. The total required payment was $405, consisting of a $350 filing fee and a $55 administrative fee.
The court ordered Ouedraogo, within 30 days of the order, to either pay the $405 or complete, sign, and submit the provided application to proceed without prepaying fees. The court stated that no further action would be taken, no summons would issue, and no answer would be required until the payment or application was received. If the application were granted, Ouedraogo could proceed without prepaying the fees.
Disposition
The court stated that if Ouedraogo failed to comply within the allowed time, or failed to seek an extension, the action would be dismissed without prejudice to refiling. The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.