Soto v. New York State Police
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-01775
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Soto v. New York State Police, Judge Swain ordered Soto to pay $405 or request permission to proceed without prepaying fees within 30 days.
Luis Danny Soto, who must either pay the required fees or submit an IFP application within 30 days to avoid dismissal of the action.
What happened
In Soto v. New York State Police, Luis Danny Soto filed a civil action without paying the required fees or submitting an application to proceed without prepaying them.
The court gave Soto 30 days to pay $405, consisting of a $350 filing fee and a $55 administrative fee, or submit a signed application to proceed without prepayment. No summons will issue at this time.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered that the case will be processed if Soto complies, but will be dismissed if he does not. She also denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Soto v. New York State Police · No. 1:25-cv-01775
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 4, 2025
Background
Luis Danny Soto filed this civil action without a lawyer. The complaint was submitted without the required filing fees and without an application to proceed without prepaying fees, known as an in forma pauperis (IFP) application.
Order
The court explained that a plaintiff must either pay $405 in fees—a $350 filing fee plus a $55 administrative fee—or submit a signed IFP application under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915. Soto must take one of those steps within 30 days of the order. If he submits an IFP application, it must identify docket number 25-CV-1775 (LTS). If the court grants the application, Soto may proceed without prepaying fees.
No summons will issue at this time. If Soto complies with the order, the Clerk’s Office will process the case under its procedures. If he does not comply within the allowed time, the action will be dismissed.
Appeal
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. The order did not address the merits of Soto’s claims against the defendants.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.