Sterling v. Howard
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-04344
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Sterling v. Howard, Chief Judge Swain ordered Sterling to pay the filing fee or submit an IFP application within 30 days.
Ishmael Sterling, who was required to pay the filing fee or submit an IFP application to continue the case.
What happened
In Sterling v. Howard, Ishmael Sterling filed a petition asking the court to review his detention or conviction, but he did not pay the $5 filing fee or submit an application to proceed without paying it upfront.
The court gave Sterling 30 days to pay the fee or submit a signed application to proceed without prepayment. No response from David Howard was required at that time. The order did not decide whether Sterling’s petition had merit.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain stated that the case would be processed if Sterling complied and would be dismissed if he did not. She also ruled that any appeal from this order could not proceed without prepayment of fees because it would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Sterling v. Howard · No. 1:22-cv-04344
- Laura Swain
- June 1, 2022
Background
Ishmael Sterling, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A habeas petition asks a federal court to review the legality of a person’s custody. Sterling submitted the petition without paying the required $5 filing fee and without submitting an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), which is a request to proceed without paying court fees in advance.
Order
The court ordered Sterling, within 30 days, either to pay the $5 filing fee or to complete and submit a signed IFP application labeled with the case docket number. The court explained that, if it granted the IFP application, Sterling could proceed without prepaying the filing fee.
The court did not require David Howard to answer at that time and did not decide the substance of Sterling’s habeas petition. If Sterling complied, the case would be processed under the Clerk’s Office procedures. If he failed to comply within the allowed time, the action would be dismissed.
Appeal-fee ruling
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal from the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.