Pena v. Downstate Correctional Facility Medical Department
- Colleen McMahon
- 7:19-cv-07336-NSR
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Pena v. Downstate Correctional Facility Medical Department, Judge McMahon granted Pena’s motion, vacated dismissal, and allowed 30 days to pay or submit authorization.
Juan Pena’s civil action was reopened when the court vacated its dismissal, but he was given 30 days to pay the $400 filing fee or submit a completed and signed prisoner authorization. His request to proceed without paying the fee on appeal was denied.
What happened
In Pena v. Downstate Correctional Facility Medical Department, the court had dismissed the action after Juan Pena, who was incarcerated and represented himself, did not timely pay the filing fee or submit the required forms. Pena later sent a letter saying he had mailed an application to proceed without paying the fee.
The court treated Pena’s letter as a request to change the October 8, 2019 judgment. Because the request was filed within 28 days and the notice of appeal was filed before the court decided the request, the court concluded it could rule on it.
Judge McMahon granted the request and vacated the dismissal and judgment. She gave Pena 30 days to pay the $400 filing fee or submit a completed and signed prisoner authorization. The court also denied permission to proceed without paying the fee for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Pena v. Downstate Correctional Facility Medical Department · No. 7:19-cv-07336-NSR
- Colleen McMahon
- Dec. 4, 2019
Background
On August 28, 2019, the court directed Juan Pena, who was incarcerated and proceeded without a lawyer, to either submit a completed application to proceed without paying the filing fee and a prisoner authorization or pay the $400 required filing fee. The court warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal.
Pena did not comply within the time allowed. On October 8, 2019, the court dismissed the action without prejudice. On October 22, the court received Pena’s letter stating that he had completed an application to proceed without paying the fee and had mailed it on September 10. The court also received his completed and signed application, but it never received a prisoner authorization. Pena later filed a notice of appeal and a motion to proceed without paying the fee on appeal.
Rule 59(e) Motion and Jurisdiction
The court construed Pena’s letter as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) to alter or amend the October 8 judgment. Pena had placed the letter in his prison’s mail system on or about October 16, eight days after the judgment. Because the letter disputed the basis for dismissal and asked the court to reopen the action, the court treated it as a timely Rule 59(e) motion.
The court explained that a notice of appeal ordinarily transfers control over the appealed matters to the court of appeals. But under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, a timely Rule 59(e) motion filed before the district court rules on it delays the effectiveness of the notice of appeal. The court therefore concluded that it had jurisdiction to decide Pena’s motion.
Ruling
Judge Colleen McMahon granted Pena’s motion and vacated the October 8, 2019 order of dismissal and judgment. The court granted Pena 30 days to either pay the $400 filing fee or submit a completed and signed prisoner authorization. The order states that the action will be dismissed if Pena fails to comply within that time.
The court also certified that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the fee for purposes of an appeal. The clerk was directed to mail Pena a copy of the order and record service on the docket.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.