Pizarro v. United States of America
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-02125
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Pizarro v. United States of America, Judge Swain ordered the incarcerated plaintiff to pay fees or submit forms to proceed.
Robert Pizarro, an incarcerated plaintiff representing himself, must either pay the required fees or submit the required IFP and prisoner-authorization forms within 30 days.
What happened
In Pizarro v. United States of America, Robert Pizarro filed a civil action without paying the required fees or submitting a completed application to proceed without prepaying them. The order states that Pizarro is incarcerated and representing himself.
The court gave Pizarro 30 days to either pay $402 in fees or submit a signed application and authorization allowing payments from his prison account. No summons would issue at that time, and the action would be dismissed if he did not comply.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain also denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees, finding that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. The order directed the Clerk of Court to mail Pizarro a copy.
The detailed version
- Pizarro v. United States of America · No. 1:22-cv-02125
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 22, 2022
Background
Robert Pizarro brought this action while incarcerated and proceeding without a lawyer. He submitted the complaint without paying the filing fees and without a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), meaning without prepaying the filing fees, or a prisoner authorization.
Order
The court explained that a prisoner filing a civil action must either pay $402 in fees—a $350 filing fee and a $52 administrative fee—or submit the IFP application and prisoner authorization. If IFP status is granted, the $350 filing fee is collected in installments from the prisoner’s account. The authorization also directs the facility to deduct those payments and provide certified account statements for the previous six months.
Within 30 days of the order, Pizarro was required to choose one of those options and label any submitted forms with docket number 22-CV-2125 (LTS). No summons would issue at that time. The order states that the case would be processed under the Clerk’s Office procedures if Pizarro complied, and that the action would be dismissed if he failed to comply within the allowed time.
Other Rulings
The court certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Pizarro a copy of the order and record service on the docket. The order also cautioned that a later dismissal for frivolousness or failure to state a claim could count as a statutory “strike” affecting a prisoner’s ability to proceed IFP in future cases.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.