Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 6, 2023

Pearson v. New York, State of

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:23-cv-00258
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Pearson v. New York, Judge Swain ordered Pearson to pay fees or submit a prisoner authorization before the case could proceed.

Who this affects

Robert Pearson, Jr., an incarcerated plaintiff representing himself, must either pay the stated fees or submit the required prisoner authorization for the action to proceed.

What happened

In Pearson v. New York, Robert Pearson, Jr. filed a civil action while incarcerated and asked to proceed without paying the fees up front. He was representing himself.

Pearson submitted the application to proceed without prepaying fees but did not submit the required authorization for deductions from his prison account. The court gave him 30 days to pay $402 in fees or submit the authorization. No summons would be issued at that time.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain said the action would be dismissed if Pearson did not comply within the allowed time. She also denied permission to appeal without paying fees because she certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

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

Case
Pearson v. New York, State of · No. 1:23-cv-00258
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Feb. 6, 2023

Background

Robert Pearson, Jr., who was incarcerated at Orange County Jail, filed this civil action without a lawyer. He submitted an application to proceed without prepaying court fees, commonly called an application to proceed in forma pauperis, or IFP. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that a prisoner who brings a civil action must either pay $402 in fees—a $350 filing fee and a $52 administrative fee—or submit a signed IFP application and a prisoner authorization. If the court grants IFP status, the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires the $350 filing fee to be collected in installments from the prisoner’s account. The authorization directs the correctional facility to make those deductions and provide certified account statements for the previous six months.

Pearson submitted the IFP application but not the prisoner authorization. The court ordered him, within 30 days of the order, either to pay the $402 in fees or complete and submit the attached authorization labeled with docket number 23-CV-0258 (LTS).

Ruling and effect

The court ordered that no summons issue at that time. It stated that, if Pearson complied, the case would be processed under the Clerk’s Office procedures. If he failed to comply within the allowed time, the action would be dismissed. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. This was a procedural order about filing requirements; it did not decide the underlying claims. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order on February 6, 2023.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-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.