Mercado v. Sing Sing Correctional Facility
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-04726
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Mercado v. Sing Sing Correctional Facility, Judge Swain ordered Mercado to explain within 30 days why his fee waiver should not be revoked.
Matthew L. Mercado is required to respond within 30 days. The order could affect his ability to proceed without paying filing fees in this case and future cases while he is incarcerated, but the court had not yet imposed those consequences.
What happened
In Matthew L. Mercado v. Sing Sing Correctional Facility, the court questioned whether Mercado may continue pursuing this case without paying the filing fee. The court said he had accumulated three prior qualifying dismissals while incarcerated under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
Mercado filed the case without a lawyer and had previously been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. He alleges that, while incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility, defendants interfered with his legal mail in retaliation for a lawsuit. The court found that the complaint did not allege an immediate danger of serious physical injury.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered Mercado to submit a declaration within 30 days explaining why his fee-waiver status should not be revoked, the case dismissed without prejudice, and a future filing-fee bar imposed while he is incarcerated. The order did not yet impose those consequences; it also denied fee-waiver status for any appeal from the order.
The detailed version
- Mercado v. Sing Sing Correctional Facility · No. 1:25-cv-04726
- Laura Swain
- Nov. 25, 2025
What the court ordered
The court issued an order to show cause, meaning it required Matthew L. Mercado to explain why proposed action should not be taken against him. Within 30 days, Mercado must submit a declaration addressing whether the court should revoke his permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, dismiss this case without prejudice, and bar him from filing future cases without paying the filing fee while he is incarcerated.
Background
Mercado filed the action without a lawyer. The court had previously granted his request to proceed without paying the filing fee. The complaint alleges that, during his incarceration at Sing Sing Correctional Facility, defendants tampered with and interfered with his legal mail in retaliation for his filing a lawsuit against the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. The opinion states that Mercado is no longer incarcerated at Sing Sing and is currently incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility.
Three-strikes issue
The Prison Litigation Reform Act’s three-strikes rule generally prevents a prisoner from proceeding without paying the filing fee if the prisoner previously brought three or more federal actions or appeals while incarcerated that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. An exception applies when the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
The court found that Mercado had accumulated three qualifying strikes based on earlier cases. It also found that the complaint did not allege an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The opinion explains that the danger must exist when the complaint is filed and that a danger that had already ended would not qualify.
Disposition
The court did not yet revoke Mercado’s filing-fee waiver, dismiss the case, or impose the future filing-fee bar. Instead, it gave him notice and an opportunity to respond. If his declaration does not show sufficient cause, or if he does not respond, the court stated that it will revoke the filing-fee waiver, dismiss the action without prejudice, and bar him from filing future actions without paying the filing fee while he is incarcerated.
The court also certified that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied filing-fee-waiver status for an appeal. The opinion states that Mercado may still file a new case by paying the filing fee, although any prisoner civil-rights complaint would remain subject to statutory screening.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.