Murray v. Pratt
- James Oetken
- 1:22-cv-00638
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Murray v. Pratt, Judge Oetken granted the City’s motion to revoke Murray’s fee waiver, requiring payment or dismissal.
Robert Murray must pay the $405 filing fee by June 10, 2025, or this action will be dismissed without prejudice. The City of New York obtained the requested revocation of Murray’s permission to proceed without paying the fee.
What happened
In Murray v. Pratt, Robert Murray’s case had been paused while the court considered whether he could continue without paying the filing fee. The issue followed a ruling in another case that revoked his permission to proceed without paying court fees.
The court found that Murray had at least three prior cases dismissed for being legally defective or improper. It also found that he had not shown that he faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury when he filed this case. Murray did not respond to the City’s request.
Judge James Oetken granted the City’s motion to revoke Murray’s fee-waiver status. He ordered Murray to pay the $405 filing fee by June 10, 2025; if he does not, the case will be dismissed without prejudice. The court also lifted the pause on the case.
The detailed version
- Murray v. Pratt · No. 1:22-cv-00638
- James Oetken
- May 20, 2025
Background
The court had stayed, or paused, this case while another case addressed whether Robert Murray could proceed without paying the filing fee. That issue concerned Murray’s status under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), a federal law governing lawsuits filed by incarcerated people. The law generally permits a qualifying person to proceed without paying the filing fee, a status commonly called in forma pauperis, but it removes that option after the person has accumulated three qualifying dismissals—often called “strikes”—unless the person shows an imminent danger of serious physical injury.
In another pending case, Magistrate Judge Aaron recommended revoking Murray’s fee-waiver status after finding that he had filed more than three cases dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a legal claim. Judge Clarke adopted that recommendation and revoked the status. The City then asked this court to take notice of that ruling and revoke Murray’s status in this case as well. Magistrate Judge Stein gave Murray a month to respond, but Murray did not respond.
Court’s analysis
The court agreed with the prior findings that Murray had accumulated at least three qualifying strikes. It also found that Murray had not alleged facts supporting the imminent-danger exception. The court explained that the danger must exist when the complaint is filed. Murray’s complaint discussed incidents from 2020, while he filed this case in 2022, so the court found no basis for applying the exception.
Ruling and effect
Judge Oetken granted the City’s motion to revoke Murray’s permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court ordered Murray to pay the $405 filing fee no later than June 10, 2025. If he fails to pay, the action shall be dismissed without prejudice, meaning the order does not state that refiling is barred. The Clerk was directed to lift the stay and mail the amended order to Murray and to Cynthia Turnipseed, whom the court identified as Murray’s agent and not a party to the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.