Colson v. Annucci
- Nelson Roman
- 7:23-cv-00654
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Colson v. Annucci, Judge Swain ordered Ronald Colson to pay filing fees or submit authorization before his case could proceed.
Ronald Colson and the case he filed against Anthony J. Annucci and the other named defendants.
What happened
In Colson v. Annucci, Ronald Colson, who is incarcerated and representing himself, submitted an application to proceed without prepaying court fees but did not submit the required authorization for payments from his prison account.
The court gave Colson 30 days to either pay $402 in fees or complete and submit the prisoner authorization. No summons would issue at that time, and the action would be dismissed if he did not comply. The court also denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain issued the order directing these filing steps. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Colson v. Annucci · No. 7:23-cv-00654
- Nelson Roman
- Jan. 27, 2023
Background
Ronald Colson, who was incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility and proceeded without a lawyer, filed this action and submitted an application to proceed without prepaying court fees. He did not submit the separate prisoner authorization required for a prisoner seeking this status.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a prisoner must either pay $402 in fees—consisting of a $350 filing fee and a $52 administrative fee—or submit the required application and authorization. If the court allows a prisoner to proceed without prepaying fees, the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires the $350 filing fee to be collected in installments from the prisoner’s account. The authorization also directs the facility to provide certified account statements for the preceding six months and to make the required deductions.
Disposition
The court ordered Colson, within 30 days of the order, to either pay the $402 in fees or complete and submit the attached prisoner authorization, labeled with docket number 23-CV-654 (LTS). No summons would issue at that time. If Colson complied, the Clerk’s Office would process the case under its procedures; if he failed to comply within the allowed period, the action would be dismissed. The court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The order did not address the merits of Colson’s claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.