Liner v. Hochul
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:21-cv-11116
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Liner v. Hochul, Judge Swain ordered Joshua Liner to pay fees or submit an application to proceed without paying them.
Joshua Liner and the continued processing of his civil action.
What happened
Liner v. Hochul was filed by Joshua Liner without a lawyer, but he did not pay the required court fees or submit an application to proceed without paying them in advance.
The court ordered Liner, within 30 days, to either pay $402 or complete, sign, and submit an application to proceed without prepaying fees. If the application is granted, he may continue without paying the fees first.
The court said no summons would issue yet and that the case would be dismissed if Liner did not comply on time. Judge Laura Taylor Swain also denied permission to appeal without paying fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Liner v. Hochul · No. 1:21-cv-11116
- Edgardo Ramos
- Jan. 10, 2022
Background
Joshua Liner brought this civil action without a lawyer. The opinion states that he submitted the complaint without paying the required fees and without submitting an application to proceed without prepaying fees.
Order
The court explained that filing a civil action required either payment of $402—consisting of a $350 filing fee and a $52 administrative fee—or a signed application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), meaning without prepaying court fees. The court ordered Liner, within 30 days of the order, to pay the $402 or complete, sign, and submit the attached IFP application using docket number 1:21-CV-11116 (LTS).
If the court grants the IFP application, Liner will be allowed to proceed without prepaying the fees. The Clerk was directed to mail Liner a copy of the order and record service on the docket. No summons was to issue at that time. The court stated that the action would be processed under the Clerk’s Office procedures if Liner complied, and that the action would be dismissed if he did not comply within the allowed time.
Appeal and disposition
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. This was a procedural order directing payment of fees or submission of an IFP application; it did not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.