Farmer v. Doe
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-03514
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Farmer v. Doe, Judge Swain denied Richard Farmer’s refund request and explained withdrawal would not stop required filing-fee deductions.
Richard Farmer is affected directly: his request for a refund or an end to filing-fee deductions was denied, and he remains responsible for the full $350 filing fee through installments even if he withdraws the action.
What happened
Richard Farmer, who is detained on Rikers Island and represented himself, had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront after submitting the required prisoner authorization. He later said he no longer wanted to continue because of financial problems and sought a refund or an end to the deductions from his prison account.
The court explained that the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires a prisoner who proceeds without paying the fee upfront to pay the full filing fee in installments, even if the case is dismissed or voluntarily withdrawn. Farmer’s signed authorization acknowledged that requirement. The court also noted that his appeal concerned an order that had already been vacated and that the district court could not process the case while the appeal was pending.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Farmer’s request for a refund. She gave him 30 days to say in writing whether he wanted to withdraw the case; if he does, the court will dismiss it without prejudice, but the filing-fee deductions will continue. If he does not respond or chooses to proceed, the case will be processed after the appeal is resolved. The court also denied permission to proceed without paying fees for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Farmer v. Doe · No. 1:25-cv-03514
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 5, 2025
Background
Richard Farmer, who is detained on Rikers Island and is proceeding without a lawyer, initially did not comply with an order requiring him either to pay the $350 filing fee or submit an application to proceed without paying the fee upfront and a prisoner authorization form. The court dismissed the matter without prejudice on June 9, 2025. After receiving Farmer’s required documents, the court vacated the dismissal and judgment, reopened the matter, and granted him permission to proceed without prepaying the fee.
Farmer filed a notice of appeal. The opinion states that the appeal appeared to challenge the vacated order and judgment and was pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The opinion also states that the appeal was in default and would be dismissed without prejudice on September 18, 2025. Farmer later wrote that he no longer wanted to continue with the case because of financial problems and asked the court to look into dismissing the appeal.
Filing-fee rule
The Prison Litigation Reform Act requires a prisoner who proceeds without prepaying the filing fee to pay the full fee through installments from the prisoner’s trust-fund account. The court explained that signing a prisoner authorization acknowledges that obligation. Farmer’s signed authorization specifically stated that the full $350 fee would be deducted in installments even if the case were dismissed or voluntarily withdrawn.
Ruling
The court held that Farmer was required to pay the full filing fee because he had signed the authorization. To the extent he sought a refund or an end to the deductions, the court denied that request. The court did not dismiss the action in this order. Instead, it directed Farmer to inform the court in writing within 30 days whether he wished to withdraw the action. If he does, the action will be dismissed without prejudice, but deductions from his prison trust-fund account will continue. If he does not respond or states that he wishes to proceed, the case will be processed after the appeal has been adjudicated.
The court also certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for that appeal. The order was signed by Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.