Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 28, 2020

Amelio v. Fischer & Burstein, P.C.

Judge
Louis Stanton
Docket
1:20-cv-06277
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Amelio v. Fischer, Judge McMahon ordered the pro se plaintiffs to pay filing fees or submit individual applications to proceed without prepayment.

Who this affects

The order directly affected the three plaintiffs, requiring each to pay the fees or submit an individual application within 30 days. It also directed the Clerk of Court to notify the plaintiffs and stated that a noncompliant plaintiff would be dismissed as a party. The opinion did not resolve the claims against the defendants.

What happened

Amelio v. Fischer & Burstein, P.C. is a case brought by Carmine P. Amelio, Alfonso Amelio, and Paul Amelio against Fischer & Burstein, P.C., Harry H. Burstein, and Adriana Rodriquez. The plaintiffs filed the action without paying the required fees or submitting applications to proceed without prepayment because they could not pay upfront.

The court gave each plaintiff 30 days to pay $400 in fees or submit a signed application requesting permission to proceed without prepayment. The court stated that if the applications were granted, the plaintiffs could continue without paying the fees upfront. No summons was issued at that time.

Judge Colleen McMahon ordered the Clerk of Court to mail the order to each plaintiff and record service. She also stated that any plaintiff who failed to comply within 30 days would be dismissed as a party and denied permission to appeal without prepaying appellate fees.

The detailed version

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

Case
Amelio v. Fischer & Burstein, P.C. · No. 1:20-cv-06277
Judge
Louis Stanton
Date
Aug. 28, 2020

Background

Carmine P. Amelio, Alfonso Amelio, and Paul Amelio filed this civil action against Fischer & Burstein, P.C., Harry H. Burstein, and Adriana Rodriquez. The opinion states that the plaintiffs were representing themselves. They filed the complaint without paying the required fees and without submitting applications to proceed without prepayment.

Order

The court explained that filing a civil action required either payment of $400—consisting of a $350 filing fee and a $50 administrative fee—or a signed application from each plaintiff requesting permission to proceed without prepayment under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915. The court ordered that, within 30 days, the plaintiffs must either pay the fees or each submit a signed application labeled with the case number.

If the court granted the applications, the plaintiffs would be allowed to proceed without paying the fees upfront. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail a copy of the order to each plaintiff and record service on the docket. No summons was to issue at that time. The court stated that the case would be processed under the Clerk’s Office procedures if the plaintiffs complied, but that any plaintiff who failed to comply within the allowed time would be dismissed as a party.

Appeal ruling and effect

Judge Colleen McMahon 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 proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. This order addressed filing-fee and application requirements; it did not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.

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.