Rafferty v. Gov. Kathy Hochul
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-08775
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Rafferty v. Hochul, Chief Judge Swain ordered payment or an application to proceed without prepaying fees within 30 days.
James L. Rafferty, Jr., who must either pay the required fees or submit an IFP application within 30 days to avoid dismissal of the action.
What happened
James L. Rafferty, Jr. filed James L. Rafferty, Jr. v. Gov. Kathy Hochul, New York State without a lawyer, without paying the required fees, and without submitting an application to proceed without prepaying them.
The court gave Rafferty 30 days to pay $405 or submit a signed application to proceed without prepaying fees. No summons will be issued yet, and the case will be processed if he complies; otherwise, the action will be dismissed.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain also ruled that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Rafferty v. Gov. Kathy Hochul · No. 1:25-cv-08775
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 24, 2025
Background
James L. Rafferty, Jr. filed this action without a lawyer. He submitted the complaint without paying the required filing and administrative fees and without submitting an application to proceed without prepaying fees, known as an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
Order
The court stated that a civil action requires payment of $405: a $350 filing fee and a $55 administrative fee. Within 30 days after the order, Rafferty must either pay the $405 or submit the attached signed IFP application, labeled with docket number 25-CV-8775 (LTS). If the court grants the application, he may proceed without prepaying the fees.
No summons will issue at this time. If Rafferty 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-related ruling
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide the merits of Rafferty’s claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.