Pedotti v. Musk
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-07695
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Pedotti v. Musk, Judge Swain ordered the pro se plaintiff to pay fees or submit an IFP application within thirty days.
The order affected Holiday Oljii Anna Pedotti, II, by requiring payment of the case fees or submission of an IFP application before the case could proceed.
What happened
In Pedotti v. Musk, Holiday Oljii Anna Pedotti, II, filed a complaint without paying the required fees or submitting an application to proceed without prepaying them.
The court ordered the plaintiff, within thirty days, either to pay $402 in filing and administrative fees or to submit a signed application showing an inability to pay. No summons would issue at that time.
Judge Swain stated that the case would be processed if the plaintiff complied and would be dismissed if the plaintiff did not. The court also denied fee-free status for any appeal from the order.
The detailed version
- Pedotti v. Musk · No. 1:22-cv-07695
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 12, 2022
Background
Holiday Oljii Anna Pedotti, II, brought the action without a lawyer. The complaint was submitted without the required filing fees and without an application to proceed without prepaying fees, commonly called an IFP application.
Court’s Order
The court explained that starting a civil action required either payment of $402—comprising a $350 filing fee and a $52 administrative fee—or submission of a signed IFP application. Within thirty days of the order, the plaintiff had to choose one of those options. If the court granted the IFP application, the plaintiff would be allowed to proceed without paying fees in advance.
No summons would issue at that time. If the plaintiff complied, the case would be processed under the Clerk’s Office procedures. If the plaintiff failed to comply within the allowed time, the action would be dismissed.
The court also certified 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 decide the underlying claims against Elon Musk or the other defendants.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.