Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 15, 2020

Walker v. Wolcott

Judge
Analisa Torres
Docket
1:20-cv-04498
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
HabeasPro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Walker v. Wolcott, Judge McMahon ordered Moustapha Walker to pay $5 or submit an application to proceed without prepaying fees.

Who this affects

Moustapha Walker was required to pay the filing fee or submit an IFP application to continue his case; the respondent was not required to answer at that time.

What happened

Walker v. Wolcott concerns Moustapha Walker’s habeas petition, which he filed without paying the $5 filing fee or submitting an application to proceed without prepaying fees. The opinion states that Walker was representing himself.

The court ordered Walker, within 30 days, either to pay the fee or submit a signed application requesting permission to proceed without prepaying it. No response from the respondent was required at that time, and the court warned that the action would be dismissed if Walker did not comply.

Judge McMahon also stated that an 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 habeas petition’s underlying claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Walker v. Wolcott · No. 1:20-cv-04498
Judge
Analisa Torres
Date
June 15, 2020

Background

Moustapha Walker filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against Julie Wolcott, identified in the caption as Superintendent of Orleans Correctional Facility. Walker was proceeding without a lawyer. He submitted the petition without paying the required $5 filing fee and without submitting an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), meaning without prepaying court fees.

Order

The court directed Walker to do one of two things within 30 days of the order: pay the $5 filing fee or complete and submit the attached signed IFP application. The application had to include docket number 20-CV-4498 (CM). The court explained that, if it granted the application, Walker could proceed without prepaying the filing fee.

The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Walker 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 and that the case would be processed under the Clerk’s Office procedures if Walker complied. If he failed to comply within the allowed time, the action would be dismissed.

Appeal and effect

Judge Colleen McMahon certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. The order addressed filing requirements only; it did not reach the merits of Walker’s habeas petition.

Disposition

The court issued an order directing payment of the filing fee or submission of an IFP application. It did not dismiss the action in this 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.