Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 8, 2023

Jones v. Annucci

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:23-cv-06917
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
5
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Jones v. Annucci, Judge Swain ordered Jones to pay fees or submit applications to proceed without prepayment within 30 days.

Who this affects

Daniel Jones was required to pay the filing fees or submit an IFP application and prisoner authorization to keep the action moving. The case would be dismissed if he did not comply within 30 days; the defendants were not required to respond at this stage.

What happened

Jones v. Annucci concerns Daniel Jones’s federal civil action against Anthony Annucci, Joseph Sergeant, and two unidentified officers. Jones filed the complaint without paying the required fees or submitting the forms needed to request permission to proceed without paying fees upfront.

The court ordered Jones, within 30 days, either to pay $402 in fees or submit a completed application and prisoner authorization. No summons will be issued yet, and the action will be dismissed if Jones does not comply within the allowed time.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain also ruled that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without prepaying appeal fees.

The detailed version

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

Case
Jones v. Annucci · No. 1:23-cv-06917
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Aug. 8, 2023

Background

Daniel Jones, who is incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility, filed this civil action without a lawyer against Anthony Annucci, identified in the caption as Commissioner of New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision; Joseph Sergeant; and two unidentified officers. The opinion does not address the underlying claims.

Fees and required forms

The court explained that a prisoner filing a civil action must either pay $402 in fees—a $350 filing fee and a $52 administrative fee—or request permission to proceed without prepaying fees, commonly called in forma pauperis or IFP status. To make that request, Jones had to submit a signed IFP application and a prisoner authorization.

The prisoner authorization would allow the facility holding Jones to deduct the $350 filing fee from his account in installments and provide the court with certified account statements for the previous six months. The court noted that the $52 administrative fee does not apply to a person granted IFP status.

Order

The court ordered Jones to pay the $402 in fees or submit the completed IFP application and prisoner authorization within 30 days of the order’s date. Any submitted documents were to include docket number 23-CV-6917 (LTS). The court stated that no summons would issue at that time. If Jones complied, the Clerk’s Office would process the case under its procedures; if he did not comply within the deadline, the action would be dismissed.

The court certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. The opinion also cautioned that certain later dismissals could count as strikes under the prisoner litigation statute, but it did not decide whether any such strike applied in this case.

The authoritative version

Read the full 5-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.