Adams v. Lilly
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-08106
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Adams v. Lilly, Judge Swain ordered return of a deficient filing-fee check and denied fee-free appeal status.
Quinton Adams, whose deficient filing-fee check was ordered returned and whose request to appeal without paying the required fees was denied.
What happened
In Adams v. Lilly, Quinton Adams filed a petition without a lawyer seeking a court order in a detention-related case. He submitted a $5 filing-fee check payable to the Eastern District of New York instead of this court.
The case had been transferred to the Northern District of New York on September 27, 2022. The Southern District of New York’s order directed its Clerk of Court to return the deficient check because the case in that court was closed.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Adams permission to appeal without paying the required fees. The order did not decide the petition’s underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Adams v. Lilly · No. 1:22-cv-08106
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 13, 2023
Background
Quinton Adams filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, meaning he asked for court relief concerning custody or detention and was proceeding without a lawyer. He submitted a $5 filing-fee check payable to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York rather than the Southern District of New York.
The opinion states that the action was transferred to the Northern District of New York on September 27, 2022. It also states that the case in the Southern District of New York was closed.
Rulings
The court directed the Clerk of Court to return the deficient check to Adams. The court’s footnote stated that Adams should contact the Northern District of New York with questions about paying the filing fee for his habeas action.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Adams permission to appeal without paying the required fees. The order did not address the merits of the habeas petition.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.