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

Walker v. Cuomo

Judge
Philip Halpern
Docket
7:20-cv-02751
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
5
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Walker v. Cuomo, Judge Halpern barred Carlton Walker from proceeding without prepaying fees but gave him 30 days to pay $400 and continue.

Who this affects

Carlton Walker is affected: he must pay $400 within 30 days to proceed with this action and remains barred from proceeding without prepaying fees in future actions while in custody unless the imminent-danger exception applies.

What happened

In Walker v. Cuomo, Carlton Walker’s claims concerning his confinement at Woodbourne Correctional Facility were transferred to the Southern District of New York after being separated from a larger case.

The court found that Walker had at least three qualifying prior dismissals, so a federal law barred him from proceeding without prepaying the filing fee unless he faced an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The court determined that any danger at Woodbourne had ended because Walker was confined elsewhere when he filed.

Judge Philip M. Halpern gave Walker 30 days to pay the $400 filing fee to proceed with the case. Walker also remains barred from proceeding without prepaying fees in future actions while in custody unless the imminent-danger exception applies.

The detailed version

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

Case
Walker v. Cuomo · No. 7:20-cv-02751
Judge
Philip Halpern
Date
June 1, 2020

Background

Carlton Walker filed a prisoner civil-rights complaint without a lawyer concerning events spanning more than 35 years and occurring at several facilities operated by the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, including Woodbourne Correctional Facility. He originally filed in the Northern District of New York and paid the filing fees there. That court separated the claims concerning Woodbourne and transferred them to the Southern District of New York.

The court explained that separated claims become a new, independent civil action. As a result, Walker had to pay the filing fee for this action or apply to proceed without prepaying it.

Three-strikes rule

The Prison Litigation Reform Act bars a prisoner from proceeding without prepaying filing fees after at least three prior federal actions or appeals were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failing to state a claim. The exception applies when the prisoner shows an imminent danger of serious physical injury.

The court reviewed Walker’s earlier proceedings and found that he had acquired at least three qualifying strikes before filing this action. The court counted prior dismissals for failure to state a claim and a prior appeal dismissed as frivolous. It also noted that certain qualifying dismissals from before the Prison Litigation Reform Act took effect may count as strikes.

Imminent-danger exception

The court concluded that Walker did not qualify for the exception. His claims concerned events at Woodbourne, but he was at Bare Hill Correctional Facility when he filed the complaint. Therefore, any danger he may have faced at Woodbourne had ended before filing. The opinion also noted that the Northern District of New York had determined that Walker’s gastritis did not present an imminent danger.

Ruling

Because Walker could not proceed without prepaying the fee, the court granted him 30 days from the date of the order to pay $400 in filing fees to proceed with this action. The order states that Walker remains barred from proceeding without prepaying fees in future actions while in custody unless he faces an imminent threat of serious physical injury.

The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The opinion does not decide the underlying merits of Walker’s civil-rights claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-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.