Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 10, 2020

Fagan v. Superintendent

Judge
Analisa Torres
Docket
1:20-cv-07389
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
HabeasPro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Fagan v. Superintendent, Judge McMahon ordered Keith Fagan to pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed without prepayment.

Who this affects

Keith Fagan, who must pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed without prepayment within 30 days or face dismissal of the action.

What happened

In Fagan v. Superintendent, Keith Fagan filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus without paying the $5 filing fee or submitting an application to proceed without prepaying fees.

The court gave Fagan 30 days from September 10, 2020, to pay the fee or submit a signed application. If he did not comply, the action would be dismissed; no summons would issue at that time.

Chief Judge Colleen McMahon directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Fagan and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees, certifying that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

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

Case
Fagan v. Superintendent · No. 1:20-cv-07389
Judge
Analisa Torres
Date
Sept. 10, 2020

Background

Keith Fagan, representing himself, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petition was submitted without the $5 filing fee required to proceed in the court and without an application to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without prepaying court fees.

Order

The court ordered Fagan, within 30 days of the order, either to pay the $5 filing fee or complete and submit the attached application. The application was required to identify docket number 20-CV-7389 (CM). If the court granted the application, Fagan could proceed without prepaying the filing fee.

The court directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Fagan and record service on the docket. The court stated that no summons would issue at that time. If Fagan failed to comply within the allowed period, the action would be dismissed. The order did not decide the substance of Fagan's habeas petition.

Appeal-related ruling

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied in forma pauperis status for purposes of an appeal.

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.