Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 1, 2020

Gunn v. Malani

Judge
Kenneth Karas
Docket
7:20-cv-02681
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Gunn v. Malani, Chief Judge McMahon ordered an incarcerated plaintiff to correct his prisoner authorization or pay filing fees.

Who this affects

Darrell Gunn, an incarcerated plaintiff proceeding without a lawyer, was required to correct his prisoner authorization or pay the filing fees before the case could proceed.

What happened

In Gunn v. Malani, Darrell Gunn, who is incarcerated and representing himself, sued Correction Officer T. Malani. Gunn asked to proceed without paying the fees upfront but submitted an authorization that did not state the amount the Court could collect.

The Court gave Gunn 30 days to either pay $400 in fees or submit the attached authorization allowing collection of the full $350 filing fee from his prison account in installments. The Court also stated that no summons would issue at that time and that the action would be dismissed if Gunn did not comply.

Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon issued the order on May 1, 2020. She directed the Clerk to mail the order to Gunn, denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees, and warned that a later dismissal for frivolousness or failure to state a claim could count as a strike under federal law.

The detailed version

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

Case
Gunn v. Malani · No. 7:20-cv-02681
Judge
Kenneth Karas
Date
May 1, 2020

Background

Darrell Gunn, who was incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility and proceeding without a lawyer, brought this civil action against Correction Officer T. Malani. Gunn submitted an application to proceed without prepaying filing fees and a prisoner authorization.

The authorization problem

The Court explained that a prisoner must either pay $400 in fees—the $350 filing fee and $50 administrative fee—or request permission to proceed without prepayment. If permission is granted, the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires collection of the $350 filing fee through installment deductions from the prisoner’s account. The prisoner authorization must direct the correctional facility to make those deductions and provide certified copies of the prisoner’s account statements for the previous six months.

Gunn’s authorization did not state the amount the Court could collect or specify that the Court could collect the full $350 filing fee from his prison account.

Order

The Court ordered Gunn, within 30 days, to either pay the $400 in fees or complete and submit the attached prisoner authorization. If he submitted the authorization, it had to identify docket number 20-CV-2681 (CM). The Clerk was directed to mail Gunn a copy of the order and record service on the docket. No summons was to issue at that time.

The order stated that the case would be processed under the Clerk’s procedures if Gunn complied and would be dismissed if he did not comply within the permitted time. The Court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. Finally, the Court warned that a future dismissal for frivolousness or failure to state a claim could count as a strike under the prisoner-filing statute.

Judge

Chief United States District Judge Colleen McMahon issued the order.

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.