Paloma v. New York City Department Of Corrections
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-00637
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Miriahm Paloma v. New York City Department of Corrections, Judge McMahon ordered Paloma to pay fees or submit authorization before the case could proceed.
Miriahm Paloma, whose case could proceed only after payment of the required fees or submission of the prisoner authorization; the Clerk’s Office and the facility holding Paloma’s account were also directed to take specified administrative steps.
What happened
Miriahm Paloma, who is incarcerated and representing herself, filed a civil action against the New York City Department of Corrections and others. Paloma submitted an application to proceed without paying fees upfront but did not submit the required authorization for prison-account deductions.
The court ordered Paloma, within 30 days, either to pay $400 in fees or submit the prisoner authorization. The authorization would allow installment payments of the $350 filing fee from Paloma’s account. The court also directed the Clerk to mail the order, and no summons was to issue at that time.
Judge Colleen McMahon said the case would be processed if Paloma complied and would be dismissed if she did not. The court also denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees and warned that certain future dismissals could count as strikes under federal law.
The detailed version
- Paloma v. New York City Department Of Corrections · No. 1:20-cv-00637
- Louis Stanton
- Jan. 24, 2020
Background
Miriahm Paloma brought this civil action while incarcerated in the Rose M. Singer Center on Rikers Island. The opinion states that Paloma proceeded without a lawyer. The defendants are identified in the caption as the New York City Department of Corrections and others.
A prisoner who wants to bring a civil action without paying the filing fees upfront must submit both an application to proceed without prepaying fees and a prisoner authorization. The authorization permits installment deductions from the prisoner’s account and requires the facility to provide certified account statements for the previous six months.
The Missing Authorization
Paloma submitted the application to proceed without prepaying fees but did not submit the prisoner authorization. The court explained that the total fees were $400: a $350 filing fee and a $50 administrative fee. The court also explained that the $50 administrative fee does not apply to a person granted permission to proceed without prepaying fees, while the $350 filing fee must still be collected in installments.
Order
Judge Colleen McMahon ordered Paloma, within 30 days of the order, either to pay the $400 in fees or complete and submit the attached prisoner authorization. The authorization was to include docket number 20-CV-0637 (CM). The Clerk was directed to mail Paloma a copy of the order and note service on the docket.
No summons was to issue at that time. If Paloma complied, the case would be processed under the Clerk’s Office procedures. If Paloma failed to comply within the allowed time, the action would be dismissed. The order did not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.
Appeal and Warning
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith, and it denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The court also warned that a prisoner’s later action dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim could count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). After three strikes, a prisoner generally cannot proceed without prepaying fees unless the prisoner faces imminent danger of serious physical injury.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.