Baker v. Lewis-Ashley
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-04971
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Baker v. Lewis-Ashley, Judge Swain ordered Eric T. Baker to pay $402 or request permission to proceed without prepaying fees within 30 days.
Eric T. Baker and the minor identified as K.O.; the order also concerns the continuation of the action against Kimani Lewis-Ashley and the other named defendants.
What happened
In Baker v. Lewis-Ashley, Eric T. Baker brought the action on behalf of a minor identified as K.O. and did so without a lawyer.
Because Baker submitted the complaint without paying the required fees or providing an application to proceed without prepaying them, the court ordered him to pay $402 or submit a signed application within 30 days. The court said no summons would issue yet.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain warned that the action would be dismissed if Baker did not comply. She also denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Baker v. Lewis-Ashley · No. 1:22-cv-04971
- Laura Swain
- June 16, 2022
Background
Eric T. Baker filed this action on behalf of a minor identified as K.O. Baker was proceeding without a lawyer. The complaint named Kimani Lewis-Ashley and other defendants, but the order did not address the underlying claims.
Payment or application requirement
The court explained that filing a civil action required payment of $402: a $350 filing fee and a $52 administrative fee. Instead of paying those fees, a plaintiff may submit a signed application to proceed without prepaying fees, commonly called an IFP application. Baker submitted the complaint without either the fees or an IFP application.
The court ordered Baker, within 30 days of the order, to either pay the $402 or submit the attached IFP application labeled with docket number 22-CV-4971 (LTS). If the court granted the application, Baker would be allowed to proceed without prepaying the fees.
Ruling and effect
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered that no summons issue at that time. The case would be processed under the Clerk’s Office procedures if Baker complied. If he did not comply within the allowed time, the court stated that the action would be dismissed. The court also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for the purpose of an appeal.
This was a procedural order about filing fees and permission to proceed without prepayment; it did not decide the merits of the claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.