Paloma v. New York City Department of Corrections
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:20-cv-00638
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Paloma v. New York City Department of Corrections, Judge McMahon ordered a prisoner to pay fees or file authorization before her case could proceed.
Miriahm Paloma, a prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, was required to pay the fees or submit a prisoner authorization for the action to proceed.
What happened
In Paloma v. New York City Department of Corrections, Miriahm Paloma filed a civil action while being held at the Rose M. Singer Center on Rikers Island. She submitted an application to proceed without paying fees upfront but did not submit the required prisoner authorization.
The court ordered Paloma, within 30 days, either to pay the $400 filing and administrative fees or to submit the authorization allowing installment deductions from her prison account. The court said the case would be processed if she complied and would be dismissed if she did not. No summons was issued at that time.
Judge Colleen McMahon also denied permission to appeal without paying fees, finding that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Paloma v. New York City Department of Corrections · No. 1:20-cv-00638
- Edgardo Ramos
- Jan. 27, 2020
Background
Miriah Paloma brought this civil action against the New York City Department of Corrections and other defendants while she was being held at the Rose M. Singer Center on Rikers Island. The opinion states that she was proceeding without a lawyer. She submitted an application to proceed without prepaying court fees, commonly called an application to proceed without paying fees upfront, but she did not submit the required prisoner authorization.
Required filing or payment
The court explained that a prisoner starting a federal civil action generally must either pay $400 in fees or submit both an application to proceed without prepayment and a prisoner authorization. If the court permits a prisoner to proceed without prepayment, the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires collection of the $350 filing fee in installments from the prison trust account. The authorization also directs the correctional facility to send the court certified copies of the prison trust-account statements for the preceding six months. The opinion notes that the $50 administrative fee does not apply to a person granted this status.
The court ordered Paloma to pay the $400 in fees or complete and submit the attached prisoner authorization within 30 days of the order. If she submitted the authorization, she was instructed to label it with docket number 20-CV-0638 (CM). The Clerk of Court was directed to mail her a copy of the order and record service on the docket. No summons was to issue at that time. The order states that the case would be processed under the Clerk’s Office procedures if Paloma complied and that the action would be dismissed if she did not comply within the allowed time.
Other ruling 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. The order also cautioned that a later dismissal of a prisoner’s federal civil action as malicious, frivolous, or for failure to state a claim could count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), and that three such strikes generally prevent a prisoner from proceeding without prepaying fees unless the prisoner faces imminent danger of serious physical injury.
Judge Colleen McMahon’s order addressed filing requirements and the payment of fees; it did not resolve the merits of Paloma’s claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.