Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 4, 2022

Wells v. Miller

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:21-cv-11231
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
HabeasPro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Wells v. Miller, Chief Judge Swain ordered Carl D. Wells to pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed without prepayment.

Who this affects

Carl D. Wells was required to pay the $5 filing fee or submit a signed application to proceed without prepayment within 30 days; otherwise, the action would be dismissed. The respondent was not required to answer at that time.

What happened

In Wells v. Miller, Carl D. Wells filed a habeas petition without paying the required $5 filing fee or submitting an application to proceed without prepayment of fees.

The court gave Wells 30 days to pay the fee or submit a signed application. The court said no response from the respondent was required at that time.

Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered that the case would be processed if Wells complied and dismissed if he did not. She also denied permission to proceed without prepayment of fees for any appeal from the order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Wells v. Miller · No. 1:21-cv-11231
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
Jan. 4, 2022

Background

Carl D. Wells, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a request for court review of his detention or custody. He did not pay the required $5 filing fee or submit an application to proceed without prepayment of fees, commonly called an IFP application.

Order

The court ordered Wells, within 30 days of January 4, 2022, either to pay the $5 filing fee or complete and submit a signed IFP application. If he submitted the application, it had to include docket number 21-CV-11231 (LTS). The court explained that, if it granted the application, Wells could proceed without paying the fee in advance.

The court stated that no answer from the respondent was required at that time. If Wells complied, the case would be processed under the Clerk’s Office procedures. If he failed to comply within the allowed time, the action would be dismissed. The court also certified that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk was directed to mail Wells a copy of the order and record service on the docket.

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.