Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 16, 2020

Barrow v. Department of Corrections

Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Docket
1:20-cv-09417
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Barrow v. Brann, Judge McMahon ordered payment or fee-waiver paperwork before the prisoner’s case could proceed.

Who this affects

Hakiem Barrow, an incarcerated plaintiff representing himself, had to pay the fees or submit the required application and prisoner authorization for the case to proceed.

What happened

In Hakiem Barrow v. Commissioner Cynthania Brann, Hakiem Barrow filed a civil case without paying the required fees or submitting the forms needed to ask to proceed without paying them upfront. The opinion says Barrow was incarcerated and represented himself.

The court gave Barrow 30 days to pay $400 or submit a signed application and authorization allowing installment deductions from his prisoner account. The court said the case would be processed if he complied and dismissed if he did not. No summons was issued at that time.

Judge Colleen McMahon directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Barrow and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The order did not decide the underlying claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Barrow v. Department of Corrections · No. 1:20-cv-09417
Judge
Edgardo Ramos
Date
Nov. 16, 2020

Background

Hakiem Barrow, who was incarcerated in the Vernon C. Bain Center, brought this civil action without a lawyer. The opinion states that Barrow originally filed the complaint with 49 other detainees; a magistrate judge had separated the claims and directed the Clerk of Court to open separate cases.

Barrow filed the complaint without paying the required fees and without completing an application to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the fees upfront, or a prisoner authorization. The order explains that a prisoner seeking that status must authorize deductions from the prisoner’s account toward the filing fee and provide certified account statements for the previous six months.

Order

The court ordered Barrow, within 30 days of the order, to do one of two things: pay $400 in filing and administrative fees, or submit the attached application and prisoner authorization. The prisoner authorization had to direct the facility holding him to deduct the $350 filing fee in installments and provide the required account statements.

The court directed the Clerk of Court to mail Barrow a copy of the order and record service on the docket. It stated that no summons would issue at that time. If Barrow complied, the case would be processed under the Clerk’s procedures; if he failed to comply within the allowed time, the action would be dismissed.

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 cautioned that a later dismissal for frivolousness or failure to state a claim could count as a statutory “strike,” but it did not make such a dismissal in this order.

Disposition and Effect

Judge Colleen McMahon issued an order directing payment of fees or submission of the required prisoner forms. The order addressed filing requirements and did not reach the merits of Barrow’s claims against the defendants. The action remained subject to dismissal if Barrow did not comply within 30 days.

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.