Dupigny v. United States
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-05346
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Dupigny v. United States, Judge Stanton gave Hubert Dupigny a final 30-day chance to pay fees or seek a fee waiver before screening and possible dismissal.
Hubert Dupigny was given a final deadline to pay the filing fee or submit the required materials to proceed without prepaying it. The case remained subject to mandatory screening, and the order stated that it would be dismissed if he failed to comply.
What happened
In Dupigny v. United States, Hubert Dupigny, who was detained and representing himself, claimed that government prosecutors and his defense lawyer violated his constitutional rights during his criminal proceedings. The court had ordered him to pay the required fees or submit an application to proceed without paying them upfront.
Dupigny repeatedly asked for more time and said he intended to pay. He later sent a $400 money order and a complaint without the required case number; the Clerk treated the submission as a new case, returned the money order as insufficient for that new case, and the other case was dismissed as duplicative. This order gave Dupigny one final 30-day extension to resubmit the $400 or provide the required fee-waiver materials, with the case number included.
Judge Stanton did not decide whether Dupigny’s constitutional claims were valid. The order warned that the complaint would be screened under the Prison Litigation Reform Act and that the action would be dismissed if Dupigny failed to comply; it also stated that no summons would issue yet and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Dupigny v. United States · No. 1:20-cv-05346
- Louis Stanton
- Dec. 14, 2020
Background
Hubert Dupigny filed this pro se action while detained at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. He alleged that United States Attorney Geoffrey Berman; Assistant District Attorneys Elinor Torlow, Mollie Bracewell, and Jacob Gutwilling; and defense counsel Aaron Mysliwiec violated his constitutional rights in connection with his criminal proceedings.
The court had ordered Dupigny to either pay the $400 required to file a civil action or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without prepaying the filing fee, together with the required prisoner authorization. The court granted two extensions after Dupigny said he intended to pay and requested information about how to do so.
December 7 submission
On December 7, 2020, Dupigny sent a $400 money order and a copy of a complaint. He did not include this action’s case number, 20-CV-5346 (CM), and the submission included a complaint. The Clerk therefore opened the complaint as a new civil action under docket number 20-CV-10281 (AJN) and returned the $400 money order because it was insufficient to file that new action after the filing fees had increased to $402. The opinion states that the other action was later dismissed as duplicative of this case.
Ruling
The court granted Dupigny a final extension of 30 days from the order’s date. He had to either resubmit the $400 fee—the amount applicable when he filed this action—or submit an application to proceed without prepaying fees and a prisoner authorization. The order required him to place case number 20-CV-5346 (CM) on any payment, application, authorization, or other document submitted in this action.
The order did not decide the merits of Dupigny’s constitutional claims. It warned that, even if he paid the filing fee, the Prison Litigation Reform Act required the court to screen the complaint and dismiss it, or any part of it, if it was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought money from a defendant immune from such relief. No summons would issue at that time. The order stated that the action would be dismissed if Dupigny did not comply and that no further extensions would be granted. It also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.
Judge identification note
The supplied case metadata identifies Louis Stanton as the judge, but the opinion text identifies Chief Judge Colleen McMahon in the body and contains an unclear signature line. This creates uncertainty about the judge attribution.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.