Potter v. People of the State of New York
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-00183
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Potter v. People of New York, Judge Swain treated Potter’s paid filing as a new case after denying permission to proceed without prepaying fees and closing the original action.
Donald J. Potter’s original action remained closed, while the Clerk of Court was directed to open a new action, transfer the complaint into it, and apply Potter’s $402 filing fee.
What happened
Potter v. People of New York concerns Donald J. Potter’s complaint against a criminal-court justice, three prosecutors, and the People of the State of New York. Potter was incarcerated and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee in advance.
The court found that Potter appeared to have previously brought three prisoner cases dismissed for being frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim. After Potter’s explanation did not show that the filing restriction was inapplicable, the court denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees and dismissed the action without prejudice. Potter later paid a $402 filing fee and asked to continue with the case.
The court directed the clerk to open a new civil action, place Potter’s complaint in that action, and apply the $402 fee to it; the original action remained closed. Judge Laura Taylor Swain also stated that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
The detailed version
- Potter v. People of the State of New York · No. 1:22-cv-00183
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 7, 2022
Background
Donald J. Potter, who was incarcerated at Riverview Correctional Facility, filed a complaint against a criminal-court justice, three prosecuting attorneys, and “the People of the State of New York.” He requested permission to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), meaning without prepaying the filing fee.
Earlier ruling
The court had notified Potter that he appeared to have already brought three cases as a prisoner that were dismissed as frivolous, malicious, or for failure to state a claim. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), a prisoner subject to that restriction may not bring a new action IFP while incarcerated. The court gave Potter an opportunity to show why the restriction did not apply, but later ruled that his declaration did not provide a sufficient reason. The court therefore denied Potter permission to proceed IFP and dismissed the action without prejudice.
The earlier dismissal order stated that Potter could start a new action by prepaying the filing fee. After the action was closed, Potter paid a $402 filing fee, which the clerk received on or about August 24, 2021. Potter then wrote to the court expressing his intent to proceed and asking the United States Marshals Service to serve the summons and complaint.
Ruling
As a courtesy, the court treated the matter as though Potter had started a new action after prepaying the fee. It directed the Clerk of Court to open a new civil action, docket the complaint from the original case in the new action, and apply the $402 fee to the new action. The court stated that the action under docket number 21-CV-5109 remained closed.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide the merits of Potter’s underlying claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.