Toussaint v. JF Restaurants
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-10739
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Toussaint v. JR Restaurants, Judge Swain ordered the pro se plaintiff to pay $402 or submit an IFP application within 30 days.
Harold Toussaint, who must either pay the required fees or submit an IFP application within 30 days to avoid dismissal of the action.
What happened
In Toussaint v. JR Restaurants, Harold Toussaint filed a civil action without paying the required fees or submitting an application to proceed without prepaying them.
The court ordered Toussaint, within 30 days, to pay $402 or submit a signed application to proceed without prepaying fees. No summons would issue at that time, and the action would be dismissed if he did not comply.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain also denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Toussaint v. JF Restaurants · No. 1:22-cv-10739
- Laura Swain
- Dec. 21, 2022
Background
Harold Toussaint brought the action without a lawyer. He submitted the complaint without paying the required filing and administrative fees and without an application to proceed without prepaying fees, commonly called an IFP application.
Court’s Order
The court stated that a plaintiff must either pay $402—$350 for the filing fee and $52 for the administrative fee—or submit a signed IFP application. The court ordered Toussaint to do one of those things within 30 days of the order. If he submitted the application, it had to identify docket number 22-CV-10739 (LTS). If the court granted the application, he could proceed without paying the fees in advance.
No summons would issue at that time. If Toussaint complied, the case would be processed under the Clerk’s Office procedures. If he failed to comply within the permitted time, the action would be dismissed.
Appeal and Disposition
The court certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. This order addressed payment of fees or an application to proceed without prepaying them; it did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.