Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 11, 2020

Rosales v. Petrucci

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
7:20-cv-02136-CS
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
HabeasPro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Rosales v. Petrucci, Judge McMahon ordered the pro se petitioner to pay $5 or submit a fee-waiver application within 30 days.

Who this affects

Joe Rosales, who must either pay the $5 filing fee or submit a signed fee-waiver application within 30 days to continue the action.

What happened

In Rosales v. Petrucci, Joe Rosales filed a petition challenging his detention through a federal custody review proceeding, but he did not pay the required filing fee or submit an application to proceed without prepaying fees.

The court gave Rosales 30 days to pay the $5 filing fee or submit a signed application showing that he could not prepay it. The court said no response from the respondent was required yet and directed the clerk to mail Rosales the order. If Rosales did not comply on time, the action would be dismissed.

Judge Colleen McMahon also ruled that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The order did not decide the petition's underlying claims.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Rosales v. Petrucci · No. 7:20-cv-02136-CS
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Mar. 11, 2020

Background

Joe Rosales, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a court proceeding seeking review of a person's custody. The petition was filed against Warden J. Petrucci. Rosales did not pay the required $5 filing fee and did not submit an application to proceed without prepaying court fees.

Order

The court ordered Rosales, within 30 days of the order, to do one of two things: pay the $5 filing fee or submit a signed application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), meaning without prepaying fees. The court instructed that any IFP application identify docket number 20-CV-2136 (CM). If the court granted the application, Rosales could proceed without prepaying the fee.

The clerk was directed to mail Rosales a copy of the order and record service on the docket. The court stated that no answer from the respondent was required at that time. If Rosales complied, the case would be processed under the clerk's procedures; if he failed to comply within the allowed time, the action would be dismissed.

Appeal and Scope of Ruling

Judge Colleen McMahon certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for an appeal. The order addressed filing-fee requirements and did not decide the merits of Rosales's custody challenge.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.