Barnett v. Rockland County Jail Matnice
- Philip Halpern
- 7:22-cv-02755
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Barnett v. Rockland County Jail Matnice, Judge Swain ordered payment or fee-waiver forms before the prisoner’s case could proceed.
Lafvorne Levi Barnett, a prisoner who filed the action without a lawyer; the underlying claims had not yet been decided.
What happened
In Barnett v. Rockland County Jail Matnice, Lafvorne Levi Barnett filed a civil lawsuit without paying the required fees or submitting the forms needed to request payment without prepaying them.
The court gave Barnett 30 days to pay $402 or submit a completed application and authorization allowing filing-fee payments to be deducted from his prison account. No summons would issue yet, and the case would be dismissed if he did not comply.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain entered the order on April 5, 2022. The order did not decide Barnett’s claims against the defendants, and it denied fee-waiver status for an appeal from the order.
The detailed version
- Barnett v. Rockland County Jail Matnice · No. 7:22-cv-02755
- Philip Halpern
- Apr. 5, 2022
Background
Lafvorne Levi Barnett filed a civil action without a lawyer and without paying the filing fees. The opinion states that Barnett was incarcerated at Five Points Correctional Facility.
Fees and required forms
The court explained that a prisoner must either pay $402— consisting of a $350 filing fee and a $52 administrative fee—or request permission to proceed without prepaying fees. To make that request, Barnett had to submit a signed application and a prisoner authorization. The authorization would allow the $350 filing fee to be collected in installments from his prison account and would require certified account statements for the previous six months.
Ruling
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered Barnett, within 30 days of the order, to either pay the $402 or submit the completed application and authorization using docket number 22-CV-2755 (LTS). The court directed that no summons issue at that time. It stated that the case would be processed under the Clerk’s Office procedures if Barnett complied, but that the action would be dismissed if he did not comply within the allowed time. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. The order did not address the merits of Barnett’s underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.