Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 29, 2023

Ettienne-Modeste v. State of New York

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:23-cv-08247
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
HabeasPro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Ettienne-Modeste v. State of New York, Judge Swain ordered Dexter Ettienne-Modeste, Jr. to pay the fee or submit a fee-waiver application.

Who this affects

Dexter Ettienne-Modeste, Jr., who must either pay the $5 filing fee or submit a signed application to proceed without prepaying fees within 30 days, or the action will be dismissed.

What happened

In Ettienne-Modeste v. State of New York, Dexter Ettienne-Modeste, Jr. filed a petition asking for a court-issued writ of habeas corpus, but did not pay the required filing fee or submit an application to proceed without paying it upfront.

The court gave him 30 days to pay the $5 filing fee or submit a signed application to proceed without prepaying court fees. The court said no summons would be issued at that time and that the action would be dismissed if he did not comply.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain also ruled that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for an appeal. The order did not decide the substance of the habeas petition.

The detailed version

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

Case
Ettienne-Modeste v. State of New York · No. 1:23-cv-08247
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Sept. 29, 2023

Background

Dexter Ettienne-Modeste, Jr., proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against the State of New York. The opinion states that he submitted the petition without paying the $5 filing fee and without submitting an application to proceed without prepaying court fees, commonly called an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).

Order

The court ordered the petitioner, within 30 days of the order, either to pay the $5 filing fee or complete and submit the attached IFP application. If he submitted the application, it had to identify docket number 23-CV-8247 (LTS). The court explained that, if it granted the application, he could proceed without prepaying the filing fee.

The court directed that no summons be issued at that time. If the petitioner complied, the case would be processed under the Clerk’s Office procedures. If he failed to comply within the permitted time, the action would be dismissed.

Appeal and Scope of Ruling

The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. The order addressed filing-fee and fee-waiver requirements; it did not decide the merits of the habeas petition.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.