Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 24, 2025

Wright v. Warden RMSC Doe

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:24-cv-05711
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Fee PetitionCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Wright v. Warden RMSC John Doe, Judge Swain denied Marcus Wright’s refund request and ordered judgment after he failed to amend his dismissed complaint.

Who this affects

Marcus Wright, whose filing-fee obligation remains in place and whose refund request was denied; the Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment.

What happened

In Marcus Wright v. Warden RMSC John Doe and Grievance Supervisor Jane Doe, the court had dismissed Wright’s complaint for failing to state a claim and gave him 30 days to file an amended complaint. Wright instead asked for a refund of the filing fee.

The court explained that prisoners allowed to proceed without paying the entire fee upfront must still pay the full filing fee in installments, even if the case is dismissed or withdrawn. Wright had signed an authorization acknowledging that requirement.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Wright’s refund request, directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment, and denied him permission to appeal without paying the fee because the appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

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

Case
Wright v. Warden RMSC Doe · No. 1:24-cv-05711
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Mar. 24, 2025

Background

The court previously dismissed Marcus Wright’s complaint for failure to state a claim and gave him 30 days to submit an amended complaint. The court had allowed Wright to proceed without paying the full filing fee at the start of the case. Wright did not file an amended complaint. Instead, the court received his January 27, 2025 letter asking for a refund because the action had been dismissed.

On August 28, 2024, Wright had signed a prisoner authorization stating that the full $350 filing fee would be deducted from his prison account in installments, even if his case were dismissed or he voluntarily withdrew it.

Court’s reasoning

The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires a prisoner who proceeds without prepaying the filing fee to pay the full fee, although payment may be collected from the prisoner’s account in installments. The court explained that dismissal of the case does not cancel the remaining fee obligation or require the return of amounts already paid. Because Wright had signed an authorization acknowledging that requirement, the court concluded that he was not entitled to a refund.

Ruling

The court denied Wright’s request for a refund. It also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Wright permission to appeal without prepaying the fee. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment in the action. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.

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.