Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 27, 2023

Guerrero v. F.C.I. Otisville Warden

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:23-cv-00702
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
HabeasCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

Guerrero v. F.C.I. Otisville Warden: Judge Swain ordered payment or an application to proceed without fees.

Who this affects

Hermes Suarez Guerrero must either pay the $5 filing fee or submit a signed application to proceed without prepaying fees within 30 days. The respondent was not required to answer at this stage.

What happened

In Guerrero v. F.C.I. Otisville Warden, Hermes Suarez Guerrero filed a petition challenging his detention but did not pay the required $5 filing fee or submit an application to proceed without prepaying fees.

The court gave him 30 days from January 27, 2023, to pay the fee or submit a signed application. The court said no response from the warden was required yet and warned that the case would be dismissed if Guerrero did not comply.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain also ruled that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. This order did not decide the substance of Guerrero’s petition.

The detailed version

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

Case
Guerrero v. F.C.I. Otisville Warden · No. 1:23-cv-00702
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
Jan. 27, 2023

Background

Hermes Suarez Guerrero, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, meaning a request for court review of his detention. He submitted the petition without paying the $5 filing fee and without submitting an application to proceed without prepaying fees.

Order

The court ordered Guerrero, within 30 days of the order, to either pay the $5 filing fee or complete and submit the attached application. If the court grants the application, Guerrero may proceed without paying the fees in advance. The application was to identify docket number 23-CV-0702 (UA).

The court stated that no answer from the respondent was required at that time. If Guerrero 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 ruling and disposition

The court certified that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The order addressed filing-fee requirements and did not decide the merits of Guerrero’s detention petition.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-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.