Ingram IV v. Cuomo
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:22-cv-05067
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Ingram IV v. Cuomo, Judge Ramos denied Wilbert Ingram IV’s late request to proceed without paying fees and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
Wilbert Ingram IV and his closed civil action.
What happened
In Ingram IV v. Cuomo, Wilbert Ingram IV, who was representing himself, first filed the matter as a miscellaneous case and paid a $49 filing fee. The court reopened it as a civil action, directed that the $49 be refunded, and gave him 30 days to pay $402 in fees or submit an application to proceed without paying them.
Ingram did neither, so the court dismissed the civil action on August 23, 2022, and closed the case. More than five months later, the court received his request to waive all filing fees and related documents.
The court denied the request as untimely and said it would not consider the new filings because Ingram had already been given an opportunity to apply for fee-free status. Judge Ramos also denied fee-free status for any appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Ingram IV v. Cuomo · No. 1:22-cv-05067
- Edgardo Ramos
- Feb. 7, 2023
Background
Wilbert Ingram IV, appearing without a lawyer, initially filed this matter as a miscellaneous case and paid a $49 filing fee. The court directed the Clerk of Court to close that miscellaneous case and reopen the matter as a new civil action. The court also directed that the $49 filing fee be refunded.
The court then instructed Ingram to pay a total of $402 in fees for the civil action or complete and submit an application to proceed without paying the fees. The court warned that the civil action would be dismissed if he did not comply. Ingram did not pay the civil filing fee or submit an application for fee-free status. The court therefore dismissed the case in an order dated August 23, 2022, directed the Clerk to close it, and directed that a copy of the order be mailed to Ingram.
Later filings
On February 3, 2023—more than five months after the dismissal order was entered—the court received four filings from Ingram: a motion to waive all filing fees, an affidavit, a certification of admission and good standing, and a verification of non-citizenship.
Ruling
To the extent Ingram intended the filings to request permission to proceed without paying the applicable fees, the court denied that request as untimely. The court stated that the action had been closed for more than five months and that Ingram had already been given an opportunity to submit the required application but failed to do so. The court therefore stated that it would not consider the recent submissions.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. Judge Edgardo Ramos directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Ingram’s last-known address.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.