Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 20, 2019

Cutts v. Miller

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:19-cv-10721
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
HabeasPro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

Cutts v. Miller: Judge McMahon ordered payment or an IFP application before processing the habeas petition, and warned of dismissal for noncompliance.

Who this affects

Aljulah Cutts must either pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit a signed application to proceed without prepayment within 30 days, or the action will be dismissed. Christopher Miller was not required to answer at this stage.

What happened

In Cutts v. Miller, Aljulah Cutts, representing herself, filed a petition challenging detention through a habeas case without paying the $5 filing fee or submitting an application to proceed without prepayment. The court had not yet required a response from Christopher Miller.

The court ordered Cutts, within 30 days, either to pay the filing fee or submit a signed application to proceed without prepayment. The opinion does not decide whether the habeas petition has merit.

Chief Judge Colleen McMahon ordered the clerk to send Cutts the order and record service. She warned that the action will be dismissed if Cutts does not comply, and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.

The detailed version

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

Case
Cutts v. Miller · No. 1:19-cv-10721
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
Nov. 20, 2019

Background

Aljulah Cutts, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against Christopher Miller, identified as the superintendent of Great Meadow Correctional Facility. The petition was submitted without the $5.00 filing fee and without an application to proceed without prepayment of fees.

Order

The court directed Cutts, within 30 days of the order, to do one of two things: pay the $5.00 filing fee or complete and submit the attached application to proceed without prepayment. The application was to include docket number 19-CV-10721 (CM). The court explained that, if the application is granted, Cutts may proceed without prepaying fees.

The clerk was directed to assign the matter to the judge's docket, mail the order to Cutts, and record service on the docket. The court stated that no answer was required at that time and that the case would be processed under the clerk's procedures if Cutts complied. If Cutts failed to comply within the allowed time, the action would be dismissed.

Appeal provision and effect

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. This order addressed filing-fee and application requirements; it did not decide the merits of Cutts's habeas petition.

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.