Benitez v. Neal
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-02149
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Benitez v. Neal, Judge Swain ordered Alejandro Benitez to pay fees or submit IFP papers within 30 days before the case could proceed.
Alejandro Benitez, whose case could proceed only after he paid the required fees or submitted the required application and prisoner authorization; the underlying claims were not decided.
What happened
In Benitez v. Neal, Alejandro Benitez, who is incarcerated and representing himself, filed a civil action without paying the required fees or submitting the required applications to proceed without prepaying them.
The court gave Benitez 30 days to either pay $405 or submit a signed application to proceed without prepaying fees and a prisoner authorization. No summons would be issued yet, and the court stated that the action would be dismissed if he did not comply.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain also denied payment-free status for any appeal from this order, finding that such an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The order did not address the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Benitez v. Neal · No. 1:24-cv-02149
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 27, 2024
Background
Alejandro Benitez filed this civil action while incarcerated at Orange County Correctional Facility and without a lawyer. He submitted the complaint but did not pay the required fees or provide a completed application to proceed without prepaying fees and a prisoner authorization.
Court’s order
The court explained that a prisoner must either pay $405—consisting of a $350 filing fee and a $55 administrative fee—or request permission to proceed without prepaying fees. If that request is granted, the $350 filing fee must still be collected in installments from the prisoner’s account. The prisoner authorization permits the facility to make those deductions and requires certified account statements for the preceding six months.
The court ordered Benitez, within 30 days of the order, to pay the $405 or submit the attached application and prisoner authorization. The documents were to identify docket number 24-CV-2149 (LTS). No summons would be issued at that time. The court stated that, if Benitez complied, the case would be processed under the Clerk’s Office procedures; if he did not comply within the allowed time, the action would be dismissed.
Appeal and warning
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied payment-free status for purposes of an appeal. The attached materials also warned that certain future dismissals of prisoner actions may count as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), subject to the statute’s stated exception for imminent danger of serious physical injury.
What the order did not decide
The opinion did not decide the merits of Benitez’s underlying claims against Messiah Neal or the other defendants.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.