Roker v. Twentieth Century Fox
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-05350
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Roker v. Twentieth Century Fox, Judge McMahon ordered Damond J. Roker to submit prisoner authorization or face dismissal.
Damond J. Roker, Cr., whose action was required to submit a prisoner authorization and could be dismissed without prejudice if he failed to comply.
What happened
Roker v. Twentieth Century Fox concerns a civil action brought by Damond J. Roker, who is incarcerated and is representing himself. He submitted an application to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance, but he did not submit the required prisoner authorization.
The court explained that the authorization allows payments toward the filing fee to be deducted from his prison account and requires account records from the past six months. The court also noted that Roker had filed an amended complaint and asked the court to seek a volunteer lawyer, but this order did not decide those matters.
Judge McMahon ordered Roker to submit the prisoner authorization within the time allowed. The order states that the action will be dismissed without prejudice if he does not comply; no summons will issue at this time, and permission to appeal without prepaying fees was denied.
The detailed version
- Roker v. Twentieth Century Fox · No. 1:20-cv-05350
- Louis Stanton
- July 27, 2020
Background
Damond J. Roker, Cr., who is incarcerated at the Northwest Correctional Complex in Tiptonville, Tennessee, brought this action without a lawyer. To proceed without prepaying the filing fees, a prisoner must submit an application to proceed without prepayment and a signed prisoner authorization. The authorization directs the correctional facility to deduct installments of the $350 filing fee from the prisoner’s account and to send the court certified account statements for the previous six months.
The court had previously directed Roker to submit both documents within 30 days. Roker submitted an application on July 16, 2020, but did not submit the prisoner authorization. The opinion also notes that he filed an amended complaint and an application asking the court to request volunteer counsel.
Order
The court directed Roker to submit the prisoner authorization form as previously ordered. It stated that the action would be dismissed without prejudice if he failed to submit the form within the time allowed. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail him the order and record service on the docket. No summons was to issue at that time.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The order warned that a later dismissal for frivolousness or failure to state a claim could count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.