Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 29, 2024

Sims v. Shapiro

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:24-cv-02383
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Sims v. Shapiro, Judge Swain ordered Nathaniel Sims to pay filing fees or request permission to proceed without prepaying them within 30 days.

Who this affects

Nathaniel Sims, who is incarcerated and representing himself, must either pay the required fees or submit a completed application to proceed without prepaying them. The order also affects the continued processing of his case against Jack Shapiro and Cindy Katz.

What happened

In Sims v. Shapiro, Nathaniel Sims, who is incarcerated and representing himself, sued Jack Shapiro and Cindy Katz. He filed a complaint and a prisoner authorization but did not submit a completed application to proceed without prepaying fees.

The court ordered Sims, within 30 days, either to pay $405 in filing and administrative fees or submit the required application. If he applies without prepaying, the $350 filing fee may be collected from his account in installments; the $55 administrative fee does not apply to people granted that status. No summons will issue yet, and the case will be processed if he complies. If he does not comply, the action will be dismissed.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain also ruled that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees. The order did not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.

The detailed version

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

Case
Sims v. Shapiro · No. 1:24-cv-02383
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Mar. 29, 2024

Background

Nathaniel Sims filed this civil action while incarcerated at Rikers Island – Otis Bantum Correctional Center. He is representing himself. The defendants named in the complaint are Jack Shapiro and Cindy Katz.

Sims submitted the complaint with a prisoner authorization but without a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), meaning without prepaying court fees.

Order

The court ordered Sims, within 30 days of the order, to do one of two things: pay $405 in fees, consisting of a $350 filing fee and a $55 administrative fee, or submit a completed IFP application. The application must be labeled with docket number 24-CV-2383 (LTS).

If the court grants a prisoner’s IFP application, the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires collection of the $350 filing fee in installments from the prisoner’s account. The prisoner authorization directs the correctional facility to make those deductions and send the court certified account statements for the previous six months. The $55 administrative fee does not apply to people granted IFP status.

Disposition

The court directed payment of fees or submission of an IFP application. No summons will issue at this time. If Sims complies, the case will be processed under the Clerk’s Office procedures; if he does not comply within the allowed time, the action will be dismissed. Judge Laura Taylor Swain also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. The order did not address the merits of Sims’s claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-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.