Rayner v. Pfizer, Inc.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:25-cv-00803
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Rayner v. Pfizer, Inc., Judge Swain ordered Frances Rayner to pay $405 or submit an IFP application within 30 days.
Frances Rayner must either pay the required fees or submit an IFP application within 30 days; the defendants were not served because no summons issued.
What happened
In Rayner v. Pfizer, Inc., Frances Rayner filed a lawsuit without paying the required fees or submitting an application to proceed without prepaying them. The opinion states that Rayner is representing herself.
The court ordered Rayner, within 30 days, to either pay $405 in filing and administrative fees or submit a signed application to proceed without prepaying fees. No summons will issue yet, and the court said the action will be dismissed if she does not comply.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain issued the order. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal from this order because it certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Rayner v. Pfizer, Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-00803
- Gregory Woods
- Feb. 19, 2025
Background
Frances Rayner brought this civil action without a lawyer. She submitted the complaint without paying the required fees and without an application to proceed without prepaying fees, commonly called an IFP application.
Order
The court explained that proceeding with a civil action requires either payment of $405—$350 for the filing fee and $55 for the administrative fee—or submission of a signed IFP application under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915.
The court ordered Rayner to do one of those two things within 30 days of the order. If she submits the IFP application and the court grants it, she may proceed without paying the fees in advance. The application must identify docket number 25-CV-803 (LTS).
No summons will issue at this time. If Rayner complies, the Clerk’s Office will process the case under its procedures. If she does not comply within the allowed time, the action will be dismissed.
Appeal-related ruling
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal.
Disposition
The court issued an order directing payment of the fee or submission of an IFP application; it did not dismiss the action in this order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.