Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 19, 2019

Espinal v. Rich

Judge
Katherine Failla
Docket
1:19-cv-10634
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
HabeasPro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Espinal v. Rich, Judge McMahon ordered pro se petitioner Espinal to pay the $5 fee or submit an IFP application within 30 days.

Who this affects

Pedro Alejandro Espinal must either pay the $5 filing fee or submit a signed application to proceed without prepaying fees within 30 days; otherwise, the action will be dismissed. Rich was not required to answer at this time.

What happened

Espinal v. Rich is a petition by Pedro Alejandro Espinal challenging his custody. He filed it without paying the required filing fee and without submitting an application to proceed without prepaying fees.

The court gave Espinal 30 days to pay the $5 filing fee or submit a signed application to proceed without prepaying fees. If he did not comply, the action would be dismissed. The court did not require the respondent to answer at that time.

Chief Judge Colleen McMahon issued the order directing these next steps. She also ruled that any appeal would not qualify for proceeding without prepaying fees because it would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

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

Case
Espinal v. Rich · No. 1:19-cv-10634
Judge
Katherine Failla
Date
Nov. 19, 2019

Background

Pedro Alejandro Espinal, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against Rich, identified in the caption as the Superintendent of Elmira Correctional Facility. The petition was filed without the $5 filing fee and without an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), meaning without prepaying court fees.

Order

The court ordered Espinal, within 30 days of the order, to either pay the $5 filing fee or complete and submit the attached signed IFP application. If he submitted the application, it had to identify docket number 19-CV-10634 (CM). The court explained that, if the IFP application were granted, Espinal could proceed without prepaying fees.

The order stated that no answer was required from the respondent at that time. It directed the Clerk of Court to assign the matter to the judge's docket, mail the order to Espinal, and record service on the docket. If Espinal complied, the case would be processed under the Clerk's Office procedures; if he did not comply within the allowed time, the action would be dismissed.

Disposition

Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon directed payment of the filing fee or submission of an IFP application. The order did not decide the merits of Espinal's habeas petition. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for an appeal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.