Marquez-Ortiz v. United States
- James Oetken
- 1:20-cv-05793
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Jerylan Marquez-Ortiz v. John Doe, Chief Judge McMahon ordered payment or an application to proceed without fees within 30 days.
Jerylan Marquez-Ortiz, an incarcerated plaintiff proceeding without a lawyer, must either pay the filing fees or submit the required fee-waiver and prisoner-authorization forms.
What happened
Jerylan Marquez-Ortiz filed a civil case against John Doe without paying the required fees or submitting the forms needed to ask to proceed without paying them upfront. The order states that Marquez-Ortiz was incarcerated and represented himself.
The court gave Marquez-Ortiz 30 days to pay $400 or submit a completed application and authorization allowing filing-fee payments to be deducted from his account. No summons would issue yet, and the case would be processed only if he complied.
Chief Judge McMahon stated that the action would be dismissed if Marquez-Ortiz did not comply. She also denied permission to appeal without paying fees and cautioned that certain future dismissals could count as strikes under federal law.
The detailed version
- Marquez-Ortiz v. United States · No. 1:20-cv-05793
- James Oetken
- Aug. 13, 2020
Background
Jerylan Marquez-Ortiz filed a civil action against John Doe. The opinion states that Marquez-Ortiz was incarcerated at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York, and was proceeding without a lawyer. He submitted the complaint without paying the required filing fees and without submitting a completed application to proceed without prepaying fees or a prisoner authorization.
Required payment or application
The court explained that a prisoner must either pay $400 in fees or submit the required forms to request permission to proceed without prepayment. The $400 consists of a $350 filing fee and a $50 administrative fee. If the court grants the fee-waiver application, the $350 filing fee is collected in installments from the prisoner’s account. The prisoner authorization permits those deductions and requires certified account statements for the previous six months.
The court ordered Marquez-Ortiz, within 30 days of the order, to either pay the $400 or submit the attached application and prisoner authorization. The documents were to identify docket number 20-CV-5793 (CM).
Effect of the order
The Clerk of Court was directed to mail the order to Marquez-Ortiz and record service on the docket. No summons was to issue at that time. If Marquez-Ortiz complied, the case would be processed under the Clerk’s Office procedures. If he did not comply within the allowed time, the action would be dismissed.
The court certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The court also cautioned that a later dismissal for frivolousness or failure to state a claim could count as a strike under the prisoner litigation statute. The opinion notes that Marquez-Ortiz had previously failed to submit similar forms in an earlier case, after which that action was dismissed without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.