Potter v. People of the State of New York
- Laura Swain
- 1:21-cv-05109
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Potter v. People of the State of New York, Judge Swain directed a new paid action while leaving the original case closed after denying Potter IFP status.
Donald J. Potter, whose request to proceed without prepaying the filing fee was denied in the closed action; the Clerk of Court, who was directed to open a new civil action and apply Potter’s $402 payment to it.
What happened
In Potter v. People of the State of New York, Donald J. Potter, who was incarcerated, had sued a criminal-court justice, three prosecutors, and the People of the State of New York. He asked to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront.
The court had found that Potter was barred from proceeding without paying because he had already brought three prisoner cases dismissed for specified reasons. It denied his request and dismissed the action without prejudice. After Potter paid a $402 filing fee and asked to continue, the court treated his filings as a request to start a new action and directed the Clerk to open one and apply the payment to it. The original case remained closed.
Judge Swain also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Potter permission to appeal without paying the required fees. The order did not decide the claims in Potter's complaint.
The detailed version
- Potter v. People of the State of New York · No. 1:21-cv-05109
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 7, 2022
Background
Donald J. Potter, who was incarcerated at Riverview Correctional Facility, filed a complaint against a justice of the criminal court, three prosecuting attorneys, and “the People of the State of New York.” He sought permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, a status commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis.
Earlier Proceedings
On June 15, 2021, the Court notified Potter that it appeared he had already brought three cases as a prisoner that had been dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner with those three dismissals generally cannot bring a new action without prepaying the filing fee. The Court gave Potter an opportunity to explain why that restriction did not apply.
On July 26, 2021, the Court found that Potter’s declaration did not provide a reason to conclude that the restriction did not apply. The Court therefore denied him permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee and dismissed the action without prejudice. The Court explained that Potter could start a new action by paying the filing fee. It also stated that a new complaint would be reviewed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires the Court to screen a prisoner’s civil-rights complaint for specified defects.
Current Order
After the action closed, Potter submitted a $402 filing fee, which the Clerk received on or about August 24, 2021. Potter then wrote to the Court seeking to proceed with the action and asking the United States Marshals Service to serve the summons and complaint.
As a courtesy, the Court treated the matter as though Potter had started a new action after prepaying the filing fee. It directed the Clerk to open a new civil action, docket the complaint from the closed case as the complaint in that new action, and apply the $402 payment to the new action. The Court did not decide the allegations or claims in the complaint.
Disposition
The action under docket number 21-CV-5109 remains closed. The Court 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 the applicable fees. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order on January 7, 2022.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.