Charles v. Department of Corrections
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-10128
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Charles v. Department of Corrections, Chief Judge McMahon dismissed Charles’s complaint without prejudice after he neither paid filing fees nor submitted required forms.
Luis Charles’s complaint was dismissed without prejudice because he did not submit the required fee-waiver application and prisoner authorization or pay the $400 filing fee. His request to appeal without paying fees was also denied.
What happened
In Charles v. Department of Corrections, the court had ordered Luis Charles to submit forms requesting permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, along with a prisoner authorization, or to pay the required $400 in fees.
Charles did not submit the forms or pay the fee within the required thirty days. The opinion does not address the underlying claims against the Department of Corrections or the other defendants.
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The court also denied Charles permission to appeal without paying fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Charles v. Department of Corrections · No. 1:20-cv-10128
- Colleen McMahon
- Feb. 11, 2021
Background
The court had previously ordered Luis Charles to do one of two things within thirty days: submit a completed application to proceed without paying the filing fee and a prisoner authorization, or pay the $400 in fees required to file a civil action in the court. The earlier order warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal.
What the Court Decided
The court found that Charles had neither submitted the required application and prisoner authorization nor paid the filing fee. It therefore dismissed the complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915. “Without prejudice” means the dismissal did not bar refiling, although the opinion does not specify what steps would be required to do so.
The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Charles permission to appeal without paying the required fees. The opinion did not decide the merits of Charles’s claims.
Effect of the Order
The complaint was dismissed because of Charles’s failure to comply with the filing-fee and required-form instructions, not because the court resolved the underlying dispute. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail the order to Charles and record service on the docket.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.