Garing v. Miller
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:24-cv-05932
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Garing v. Miller, Judge Swain ordered the pro se petitioner to pay $5 or apply to proceed without fees.
Stephen Garing must either pay the $5 filing fee or submit a signed application to proceed without prepaying fees within 30 days; otherwise, the action will be dismissed.
What happened
Garing v. Miller is Stephen Garing’s petition asking a federal court to review his custody. He filed it without paying the $5 filing fee or submitting an application to proceed without paying fees.
The court ordered Garing, within 30 days, to pay the fee or submit a signed application. The court said no response from Mark Miller was required yet; if Garing complies, the case will proceed through the Clerk’s Office, but if he does not, the action will be dismissed.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain also ruled that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying fees. The order did not decide the petition’s underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Garing v. Miller · No. 7:24-cv-05932
- Kenneth Karas
- Aug. 6, 2024
Background
Stephen Garing, who is proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against Mark Miller. The opinion does not describe the petition’s underlying claims. Garing filed the petition without paying the $5 filing fee and without submitting an application to proceed without prepaying fees, commonly called an IFP application.
Order
The court ordered Garing, within 30 days of August 6, 2024, to do one of two things: pay the $5 filing fee or complete and submit the attached signed IFP application. If the court grants the application, Garing may proceed without paying the fee in advance.
The court stated that no answer from Miller was required at that time. If Garing complies with the order, the case will be processed under the Clerk’s Office procedures. If he does not comply within the allowed time, the action will be dismissed.
Appeal and effect
The court certified that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. This order addressed the filing-fee requirement and did not reach the merits of Garing’s petition.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.