Perez v. Bryant
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-00079
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Perez v. Bryant, Judge McMahon reopened Felipe Perez’s case and required him to submit updated fee information or pay $400.
Felipe Perez, who must submit an amended fee-waiver application or pay $400 within 30 days to continue the action.
What happened
In Felipe Perez v. E. Bryant, et al., Felipe Perez filed the case without a lawyer while incarcerated. The court had dismissed it without prejudice after he neither paid the required fees nor submitted the forms needed to proceed without paying fees upfront. After Perez reported that he had been released and submitted those forms, the court reconsidered the case’s status.
The court vacated its earlier dismissal and judgment and reopened the case. Because Perez was no longer incarcerated, the court required him to submit an updated application to proceed without paying fees upfront within 30 days, or to pay $400 in filing and administrative fees. The court warned that failing to comply would result in dismissal without prejudice to refiling.
Judge Colleen McMahon also warned Perez to keep the court informed of any address change and denied fee-waiver status for any appeal from this order, certifying that such an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Perez v. Bryant · No. 1:20-cv-00079
- Colleen McMahon
- June 2, 2020
Background
Felipe Perez brought this action without a lawyer while he was incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility. On January 8, 2020, the court directed him either to pay the fees required to bring a civil case or to submit an application to proceed without paying fees upfront, along with authorization for prison officials to collect the filing fee from his prison account.
Perez did neither. On February 24, 2020, the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice. On May 7, 2020, the court received Perez’s letter stating that he was no longer incarcerated and providing a new address. His submission included an application to proceed without paying fees upfront and a prisoner authorization.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that the Prison Litigation Reform Act treats a person as a prisoner based on the person’s status when the complaint is filed. Prisoners who proceed without paying fees upfront generally must pay the filing fee in installments and may be barred from that status under the “three strikes” rule if they previously had three federal civil actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. A prisoner who filed a complaint must also have exhausted available prison grievance procedures.
The court stated that release from custody does not change the plaintiff’s status at the time the complaint was filed. But after release, the person’s obligation to pay fees is determined by the financial requirements that apply to non-prisoners. Because Perez’s financial situation may have changed, the court directed him to submit an amended application within 30 days if he wanted to proceed without paying fees upfront. As an alternative, he could pay $400, consisting of a $350 filing fee and a $50 administrative fee.
The court also stated that release would not prevent a later dismissal for failure to state a claim, frivolousness, or maliciousness from potentially counting as a “strike” under the three-strikes rule. Perez was required to notify the court in writing of any address change, and the court warned that failing to do so could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Disposition
Judge Colleen McMahon directed the Clerk of Court to vacate the February 24, 2020 order and judgment and to reopen the action. The court directed Perez to submit an amended application to proceed without paying fees upfront or pay the $400 in required fees within 30 days. The court further certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide the merits of Perez’s claims against the defendants.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.