Lax v. DOC Rikers Island Rose M. Singer Center and Staff
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-00622
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Lax v. DOC Rikers Island Rose M. Singer Center and Staff, Judge Swain ordered fee payment or proper applications to proceed without paying upfront within 30 days.
Crystal Lax and Dominique Lax were required to address the filing fees within 30 days. If either plaintiff qualified as a prisoner, that plaintiff also had to submit authorization for installment deductions from a prison account.
What happened
In Lax v. DOC Rikers Island Rose M. Singer Center and Staff, Crystal Lax and Dominique Lax brought a civil case without lawyers. The court said each plaintiff must either pay the required fees or submit her own application to proceed without paying the fees upfront.
Only one application had been submitted, and although both plaintiffs signed it, the court said the financial information appeared to concern only one plaintiff. The court also said it was unclear whether either plaintiff was incarcerated. If either plaintiff qualified as a prisoner, that plaintiff would also have to submit authorization for installment payments from a prison account.
The court ordered the plaintiffs, within 30 days, to pay $402 or each submit a complete application to proceed without paying upfront; any qualifying prisoner must also submit prisoner authorization. Judge Swain said no answer was required at that time, warned that the action would be dismissed if the plaintiffs did not comply, and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
The detailed version
- Lax v. DOC Rikers Island Rose M. Singer Center and Staff · No. 1:23-cv-00622
- Laura Swain
- Feb. 3, 2023
Background
Crystal Lax and Dominique Lax brought the action without lawyers. The court explained that starting a civil action required either payment of $402 in fees—$350 for filing and $52 in administrative fees—or a signed application to proceed without prepaying those fees, commonly called an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
Because there were two plaintiffs, each plaintiff had to submit a separate IFP application. The court found that only one application had been submitted. Although both plaintiffs signed it, the information appeared to relate only to one of them, including an answer stating that the person received Supplemental Security Income when not in jail or a hospital.
The court also found it unclear whether one of the plaintiffs was incarcerated. Under the cited statute, a prisoner must still pay the full filing fee, although the $350 filing fee may be collected in installments from the prisoner's account. A qualifying prisoner must submit a prisoner authorization directing the facility to make those deductions and provide certified account statements for the previous six months.
Order
The court directed the plaintiffs, within 30 days of the order, to do one of the following: pay the $402 in fees, or have each plaintiff complete and submit her own IFP application. If either plaintiff qualified as a prisoner, that plaintiff also had to submit a prisoner authorization. The documents had to identify docket number 23-CV-622 (LTS) and be submitted to the court's Pro Se Intake Unit.
The court stated that no answer was required at that time. It warned that failure to comply within the allowed period would result in dismissal of the action. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order as Chief United States District Judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.