Wells v. State of New York Department of Corrections
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-11280
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Wells v. State of New York Department of Corrections, Judge McMahon granted 30 more days to pay fees or seek a fee waiver.
Carl Wells, who must either pay the filing fee or submit materials showing that he may proceed without prepaying it; otherwise, his complaint will be dismissed without prejudice.
What happened
Carl Wells asked for 60 more days to submit a new complaint, pay the filing fee, or withdraw his case, saying that treatment had been corrected. The court noted that his complaint concerned medical care at Green Haven Correctional Facility and was difficult to read.
The court said Wells appeared to have at least three earlier qualifying dismissals under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, and the complaint did not show an immediate risk of serious physical harm. That could prevent him from proceeding without paying the filing fee.
Judge Colleen McMahon granted the extension request to the extent that Wells received 30 days from the order date to pay $400 or submit the required fee-waiver materials and declaration. If he did not respond, the complaint would be dismissed without prejudice. The court also denied fee-waiver status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Wells v. State of New York Department of Corrections · No. 1:19-cv-11280
- Colleen McMahon
- Jan. 10, 2020
Background
Carl Wells filed this action about the denial of medical care at Green Haven Correctional Facility. The case was transferred from the Eastern District of New York to the Southern District of New York because Green Haven is within the latter court’s jurisdiction.
Wells had not paid the filing fee or submitted an application to proceed without prepaying fees and the required prisoner authorization. He requested a 60-day extension to submit a new complaint, pay the fee, or withdraw the complaint, stating that the defendants had corrected his treatment.
Court’s analysis
The court discussed the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s “three-strikes” rule, which generally prevents a prisoner from proceeding without prepaying filing fees after three or more earlier federal actions or appeals were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. The court relied on rulings in earlier related proceedings stating that Wells had three or more qualifying dismissals when he filed this case.
The court also found that the complaint did not show that Wells faced an immediate danger of serious physical injury. The complaint was almost entirely illegible, and although it appeared to concern medical care, the court could not identify facts showing such danger.
Ruling
Judge Colleen McMahon granted Wells’s extension request to the extent that he received 30 days from the date of the order to do one of two things: pay $400 in filing fees, or submit an application to proceed without prepaying fees, the prisoner authorization, and a declaration showing that the three-strikes rule did not bar him when he filed the complaint. The court supplied a declaration form and directed that any declaration be submitted to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit with the case docket number.
The court stated that if Wells failed to respond as directed, the complaint would be dismissed without prejudice to refiling. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.