Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 3, 2022

Stevens v. Walker

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:22-cv-06545
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
HabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Stevens v. Walker, Judge Swain dismissed the petition without prejudice because Stevens neither paid the fee nor submitted a fee-waiver request.

Who this affects

The dismissal directly affected Mark Stevens's petition. The order also affected his ability to appeal without a certificate of appealability or without paying appellate fees; the opinion does not describe any separate relief imposed on S. Walker.

What happened

In Stevens v. Walker, Mark Stevens filed a petition against S. Walker, identified as the warden at R.N.D.C. C-74. The court had ordered Stevens to either pay the $5 filing fee or submit a completed request to proceed without paying it.

Stevens did neither within the required 30 days. The opinion also states that public records showed Stevens was released on September 12, 2022, but it does not say that this release was the reason for dismissal.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the petition without prejudice, meaning the dismissal did not bar refiling. The court also denied a certificate of appealability and denied permission to appeal without paying fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Stevens v. Walker · No. 1:22-cv-06545
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Oct. 3, 2022

Background

Mark Stevens was the petitioner, and S. Walker, identified as the warden at R.N.D.C. C-74, was the respondent. The court's August 2, 2022 order directed Stevens within 30 days either to submit a completed application to proceed without paying the filing fee or to pay the $5 filing fee. That order warned that failing to comply would result in dismissal.

Court's ruling

The court found that Stevens had neither submitted the application nor paid the fee. It therefore dismissed the petition without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915. The opinion also notes that public records maintained by the New York City Department of Correction showed Stevens was released on September 12, 2022; it does not state that the release independently supported the dismissal.

The court determined that the petition did not make a substantial showing that Stevens's constitutional rights had been denied, so it ordered that no certificate of appealability would issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying fees. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.