Williams v. Muran
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-03008
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Williams v. Muran: Judge Swain ordered Williams to submit updated fee and signature documents before the case could proceed.
Tearre M. Williams, whose ability to continue the action without prepaying the filing fee depended on submitting an amended fee application and an original signature within 30 days; the court did not decide the claims against the defendants.
What happened
In Williams v. Muran, the court noted that Tearre M. Williams had filed an application to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront but had not submitted the required prisoner authorization. The court also learned that Williams was no longer in custody.
The court directed Williams to submit an amended application showing his current ability to pay, or to pay the $402 filing fee. The court separately directed him to submit a signed signature page for his complaint within 30 days.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain also denied Williams permission to appeal this order without paying fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The court did not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.
The detailed version
- Williams v. Muran · No. 1:22-cv-03008
- Laura Swain
- May 31, 2022
Background
Tearre M. Williams filed this civil action and submitted an application to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. Because Williams was detained at Rikers Island when he filed the action, the court had previously directed him to submit a prisoner authorization or pay the $402 filing fee. Williams did not submit the authorization.
The court later learned from a filing in one of Williams’s other pending actions that he was no longer in custody. The court explained that the Prison Litigation Reform Act’s payment system for incarcerated plaintiffs cannot continue after a prisoner is released because there is no longer a prison account from which to calculate and collect installment payments. The court therefore said Williams’s obligation should be handled either by requiring payment of the remaining fee or by evaluating his ability to proceed under the ordinary, non-prisoner standard.
Fee application
The court directed Williams to submit an amended application to proceed without prepaying fees so that it could evaluate his current ability to pay. Alternatively, if he could afford the fee, he was required to pay $402. The court did not grant the amended application in this order. It stated that, if the amended application were later granted, Williams could proceed without prepaying the filing fee.
The court also noted that some provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act still apply after release, including the rule that can limit future fee-free filings after three qualifying dismissals. The court did not apply that rule in this order.
Signature requirement
Williams submitted the complaint without a signature. The court cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) and the corresponding local rule, which require a pleading to bear an attorney’s signature or, when a party is unrepresented, the party’s own original signature. The court directed Williams to submit the complaint’s signature page with an original signature.
Disposition
The court directed Williams, within 30 days of the order, to submit an amended application to proceed without prepaying fees and a signed signature page. The court also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The order did not resolve the merits of Williams’s claims against Kelly Muran, Judge N. Ross, or Steven Hoffner.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.