Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Apr. 23, 2020

Best v. New York City Police Department Sex Offender Unit

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:20-cv-03218
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
HabeasPro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Best v. New York City Police Department Sex Offender Unit, Judge McMahon ordered payment of the fee or submission of an IFP application.

Who this affects

Hillary Best must pay the filing fee or submit a signed IFP application within 30 days; the respondent is not required to answer at this time.

What happened

Best v. New York City Police Department Sex Offender Unit concerns Hillary Best’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which she filed without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee or submitting an application to proceed without prepaying fees.

The court gave Best 30 days from April 23, 2020, to pay the $5 filing fee or submit a signed application asking to proceed without prepayment. The court said no response from the police department unit was required at that time.

Judge Colleen McMahon ordered the Clerk to mail the order to Best and record service. The court stated that the case would be dismissed without prejudice if Best did not comply on time, and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.

The detailed version

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

Case
Best v. New York City Police Department Sex Offender Unit · No. 1:20-cv-03218
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Apr. 23, 2020

Background

Hillary Best, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. She submitted the petition without the required $5 filing fee and without an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), meaning without prepaying court fees.

Order

The court ordered Best, within 30 days of the order, to do one of two things: pay the $5 filing fee or complete and submit the attached signed IFP application. If she submitted the application, it was to include docket number 20-CV-3218 (CM). The court explained that approval of the IFP application would allow her to proceed without prepaying the fee.

The court directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Best and note service on the docket. It stated that the respondent was not required to file an answer at that time. The court further stated that failure to comply within the allowed period would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice. It certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal.

Disposition

Judge Colleen McMahon issued an order directing payment of the filing fee or submission of an IFP application. The opinion did not decide the underlying habeas petition.

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.