Carrasquillo v. Superintendent
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-01030
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Carrasquillo v. Superintendent, Chief Judge Swain dismissed Carrasquillo’s federal habeas petition without prejudice because he neither paid the fee nor filed a fee-waiver application.
Shakur Carrasquillo’s § 2254 habeas petition was dismissed without prejudice because he neither paid the $5 filing fee nor submitted an application to proceed without paying it.
What happened
In Carrasquillo v. Superintendent, Shakur Carrasquillo filed a petition asking the federal court to review his custody under a federal habeas law. The court ordered him to either pay the $5 filing fee or submit an application to proceed without paying it.
Carrasquillo did neither within the required thirty days. The court therefore dismissed the petition without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling. The court also directed the clerk to enter judgment.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain ruled that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee. The order did not decide the petition’s underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Carrasquillo v. Superintendent · No. 1:25-cv-01030
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 10, 2025
Background
Shakur Carrasquillo filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A writ of habeas corpus is a court procedure through which a person may challenge certain custody or imprisonment. The filing required either payment of a $5 fee or an application to proceed without paying the fee, commonly called an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
On February 5, 2025, the court gave Carrasquillo thirty days to submit the fee application or pay the filing fee. The order warned that failing to comply would result in dismissal without prejudice.
Court’s Ruling
Carrasquillo did not submit the fee application and did not pay the filing fee. The court therefore dismissed the petition without prejudice. The opinion did not address the merits of Carrasquillo’s habeas claims.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the fee for an appeal. The court directed the clerk to enter judgment.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.