Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 7, 2024

Taylor v. The City of New York

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:24-cv-04241
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Taylor v. The City of New York, Judge Swain denied permission to proceed without paying fees and dismissed the action without prejudice under the three-strikes rule.

Who this affects

Eric Taylor’s ability to proceed in this action without paying filing fees was affected. The action was dismissed without prejudice, and Taylor remains barred from filing future federal civil actions without paying fees while he is a prisoner unless he shows imminent danger of serious physical injury.

What happened

Taylor v. The City of New York involved Eric Taylor, who was detained at the Otis Bantum Correctional Center and filed the action without a lawyer. Because he had not paid the filing fees, the court treated his filing as a request to proceed without paying them.

The court said Taylor had accumulated three qualifying prior dismissals while incarcerated. Under the federal three-strikes rule, a prisoner generally cannot proceed without paying fees unless the complaint shows an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court found that Taylor’s filing, which referred to issues including cybersecurity, libel, slander, and “Muslim Satanists,” did not show such danger.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Taylor permission to proceed without paying fees and dismissed the action without prejudice under the three-strikes rule. Taylor may start a new federal civil action by paying the filing fees, and the court also denied permission to appeal without paying fees.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Taylor v. The City of New York · No. 1:24-cv-04241
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Aug. 7, 2024

Background

Eric Taylor, who was detained at the Otis Bantum Correctional Center on Rikers Island, brought this action without a lawyer against The City of New York. Because Taylor had not paid the filing fees, the court understood that he was asking to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying those fees in advance.

Three-Strikes Rule

The Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), generally bars a prisoner from bringing a new federal civil action without paying fees if the prisoner previously brought three actions or appeals while incarcerated that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim. The exception applies when the complaint shows that the prisoner was in imminent danger of serious physical injury when the complaint was filed.

The court stated that Taylor had accumulated three strikes while he was a prisoner. The court also noted that, although one strike previously listed for Taylor was not actually a strike, Taylor remained barred based on an appeal in an earlier related proceeding that had been dismissed as frivolous.

Taylor’s Filing

Taylor submitted a personal-injury claim form from the New York City Comptroller’s Office as his complaint. The form referred to multiple issues, including cybersecurity, libel, slander, and “Muslim Satanists.” The court found that none of the assertions showed that Taylor faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury when he filed the action.

Ruling and Effect

The court denied Taylor leave to proceed without paying fees and dismissed the action without prejudice under § 1915(g). The court stated that Taylor remains barred from filing future federal civil actions without paying fees while he is a prisoner, unless he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury when he files. The court explained that Taylor may commence a new federal civil action by paying the filing fees; any such complaint would be subject to prisoner screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Taylor permission to appeal without paying fees. It terminated all other pending matters and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.