Dunnell v. Department of Corrections, G.R.V.C.
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-11918
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Dunnell v. Department of Corrections, Judge McMahon gave Platto Dunnell 30 days to pay fees or submit a prisoner authorization.
The order directly affects Platto Dunnell by requiring him to pay the filing fees or submit a prisoner authorization before the case proceeds. It does not decide the claims against the Department of Corrections, G.R.V.C., C.O. L. Pena, C.O. Perez, or C.O. Guzman.
What happened
In Dunnell v. Department of Corrections, G.R.V.C., Platto Dunnell filed the case without a lawyer and submitted an application to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront. He did not submit the required prisoner authorization, which permits installment deductions from his account and requests account records.
The court ordered Dunnell, within 30 days, either to pay $400 in fees or submit the completed prisoner authorization. The court said the case would be processed if he complied and would be dismissed if he did not. No summons would issue at that time.
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon also denied permission to appeal without paying fees, finding that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. The order did not decide the claims against the defendants.
The detailed version
- Dunnell v. Department of Corrections, G.R.V.C. · No. 1:19-cv-11918
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 3, 2020
Background
Platto Dunnell brought this civil action without a lawyer. The opinion states that he was detained in the Anna M. Kross Center on Rikers Island. He submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), meaning he asked to proceed without paying the filing fees upfront, but he did not submit the required prisoner authorization.
Filing-fee requirements
The court explained that a prisoner filing a civil action must either pay $400 in fees—a $350 filing fee and a $50 administrative fee—or submit a signed IFP application and a prisoner authorization. If the court grants IFP status, the $350 filing fee must be collected in installments from the prisoner's account. The authorization also directs the detention facility to deduct those payments and provide certified copies of the prisoner's account statements for the previous six months.
Order
The court ordered Dunnell to do one of two things within 30 days of the order: pay the $400 in fees or complete and submit the attached prisoner authorization, labeled with docket number 19-CV-11918 (CM). The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Dunnell a copy of the order and note service on the docket. No summons would issue at that time.
The court stated that the case would be processed under the Clerk's Office procedures if Dunnell complied. If he failed to comply within the permitted time, the action would be dismissed. The opinion did not state that the court had yet granted or denied Dunnell's IFP application, and it did not decide the claims against the defendants.
Appeal and caution
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith, so IFP status was denied for an appeal. The court also cautioned that a later dismissal for frivolousness or failure to state a claim could count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.