Hickman v. Harvey
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-02721
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hickman v. Harvey, Judge Swain ordered Hickman to pay filing fees or fix his application to proceed without prepaying them.
Quandell Hickman, the incarcerated plaintiff proceeding without a lawyer, must either pay the required fees or submit a complete, signed amended application within 30 days. The action may be dismissed if he does not comply; no summons will issue at this time.
What happened
Hickman v. Harvey concerns Quandell Hickman’s incomplete request to proceed without prepaying court fees in his civil action. Hickman, who is incarcerated, submitted a prisoner authorization form, but the second page of his fee application was missing, leaving required information and a signature absent.
The court gave Hickman 30 days to either pay $405 in fees or submit an amended application. The court said no summons would issue yet and warned that the action would be dismissed if he did not comply.
Judge Swain also denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees on appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. This order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Hickman v. Harvey · No. 1:24-cv-02721
- Laura Swain
- May 22, 2024
Background
Quandell Hickman, who is currently incarcerated at the Otis Bantum Correctional Center on Rikers Island, brought this civil action without a lawyer. He submitted a prisoner authorization form with his complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), meaning without prepaying filing fees.
The IFP application was incomplete because its second page was missing. As a result, the application lacked certain information and was unsigned.
Order
The court ordered Hickman, within 30 days of the order, to do one of two things: pay $405 in required fees or submit an amended IFP application. The court explained that the $405 consists of a $350 filing fee and a $55 administrative fee, although the administrative fee does not apply to people granted IFP status. If Hickman submits an amended application, it must include docket number 24-CV-2721 (LTS).
No summons shall issue at this time. The court stated that the action will be dismissed if Hickman does not comply within the allowed period. The order also cautioned that a dismissal for frivolousness, maliciousness, or failure to state a claim can count as a “strike” under the federal prisoner-filing-fee statute.
Appeal and Scope of the Order
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. The order addressed only the fee payment or amended-application requirement; it did not decide the merits of Hickman’s underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.