Miles-Baker v. 1 X Instagram
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-07485
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Miles-Baker v. 1 X Instagram, Judge Swain ordered Eric T. Miles-Baker to pay $402 or submit an application to proceed without prepaying fees within 30 days.
Eric T. Miles-Baker, who was required to pay the fees or submit an application to proceed without prepaying them.
What happened
Miles-Baker v. 1 X Instagram concerns Eric T. Miles-Baker’s lawsuit, which he filed without a lawyer, without paying the required fees, and without submitting an application to proceed without prepaying fees.
The court ordered him to pay $402 or submit a signed fee-waiver application within 30 days. No summons would issue at that time, and the case would be processed if he complied. The court stated that the action would be dismissed if he did not comply within the deadline.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain also ruled that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Miles-Baker v. 1 X Instagram · No. 1:22-cv-07485
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 2, 2022
Background
Eric T. Miles-Baker brought the action without a lawyer. He submitted the complaint without paying the required filing fees and without submitting an application to proceed without prepaying fees, known as an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
Order
The court explained that proceeding with a civil action required either paying $402— consisting of a $350 filing fee and a $52 administrative fee—or submitting a signed IFP application. The court ordered Miles-Baker, within 30 days of the order, to do one of those two things. If he submitted the application, it was to identify docket number 22-CV-7485. The court stated that, if the application were granted, he could proceed without prepaying fees.
No summons would issue at that time. If Miles-Baker 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-Related Ruling
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. The order did not address the merits of Miles-Baker’s claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.