Lavi v. Talwar
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-10948
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Lavi v. Talwar, Judge Swain ordered pro se plaintiff Pierre Lavi to pay fees or submit an application to proceed without prepaying fees within 30 days.
Pierre Lavi was required to pay $402 in fees or submit a signed application to proceed without prepaying fees within 30 days. No summons would issue while this requirement remained unresolved, and failure to comply would result in dismissal of the action.
What happened
In Lavi v. Talwar, Pierre Lavi filed a civil action without paying the required fees or submitting an application to proceed without prepaying them. The order does not address the lawsuit’s underlying claims.
The court ordered Lavi, within 30 days, either to pay $402 in filing and administrative fees or submit a signed application to proceed without prepaying fees. No summons would issue at that time, and the case would be processed under the Clerk’s Office procedures if Lavi complied.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain stated that the action would be dismissed if Lavi did not comply within the allowed time. She also denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees, finding that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Lavi v. Talwar · No. 1:22-cv-10948
- Laura Swain
- Dec. 29, 2022
Background
Pierre Lavi brought this civil action pro se, meaning without a lawyer. He submitted the complaint without paying the required fees and without an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), meaning without prepaying court fees.
Fee or IFP requirement
The court explained that proceeding with a civil action required either payment of $402—the $350 filing fee plus a $52 administrative fee—or submission of a signed IFP application. The court ordered Lavi to do one of those things within 30 days of the order. If the court granted the IFP application, Lavi could proceed without prepaying the fees.
Effect of the order
No summons would issue at that time. If Lavi complied, the case would be processed under the Clerk’s Office procedures. If he failed to comply within the allowed period, the action would be dismissed.
Appeal-related ruling
The court certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide the merits of Lavi’s claims against Puneet Talwar.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.