SIRTES DISTRICR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SF ae LB WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FEB 2 8 2025 apy os _———_____ et yt CeSreRn pisrRict LAM CHEE HONG, Petitioner, v. 25-CV-182 (JLS) ORDER PAMELA BONDI, et al., Respondents.

Pro se Petitioner, Lam Chee Hong, is a civil immigration detainee currently confined at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility. Petitioner has filed a Petition for a writ of habeas corpus under

. Dkt. 1.

DISCUSSION

The filing fee for a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is $5.00.

(a). Whenever a civil immigration detainee submits a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the prisoner must either (1) pay the filing fee or (2) submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Under 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(1), the in forma pauperis motion must include an affidavit or affirmation establishing that the petitioner is unable to pay the fees and costs for the proceedings.

1 The Court has ordered that a form motion to proceed in forma pauperis with supporting affirmation be mailed to the petitioner. The form also is available at http://www.nywd.uscourts.gov/pro-se-forms.

Here, Petitioner did not pay the $5.00 filing fee; nor did he submit a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Clerk of Court shall administratively terminate the Petition without prejudice. Petitioner is granted leave to reopen, no later than March 31, 2025, by either (1) paying the $5.00 filing fee or (2) submitting a motion to proceed in forma pauperis that establishes Petitioner's inability to pay fees and costs.”

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall administratively terminate this action without prejudice without filing the Petition or assessing a filing fee; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall send to Petitioner a form motion to proceed in forma pauperis; and it is further ORDERED that if Petitioner wishes to reopen this action, by March 31, 2025, Petitioner must submit either (1) a motion to proceed in forma pauperis that

2 Such an administrative termination is not a “dismissal” for purposes of the statute of limitations, and if the case is reopened following the terms of this order, it is not subject to the statute of limitations time bar if it was originally filed timely. See Houston v. Lack,

(1988) (prisoner mailbox rule); McDowell v. Delaware State Police,

(3d Cir. 1996); see also Williams-Guice v. Bd. of Educ., 45 F.8d 161, 163 (7th Cir. 1995).

includes an affidavit or affirmation establishing the inability to pay fees and costs

or (2) the $5.00 filing fee; and it is further ORDERED that upon Petitioner’s submission of either (1) a motion to proceed in forma pauperis or (2) the $5.00 filing fee, the Clerk of Court shall reopen this case.

SO ORDERED. Dated: February 28, 2025 Buffalo New York [™ \ 4 Oy JOHNI/ SINATRA, JR. □ UNIT TATES DISTRICT JUDGE