Summary
The Eastern District of New York denies Samuel Thomas’s application to proceed in forma pauperis without prejudice because the application does not provide sufficient information about his financial circumstances. The court grants leave to renew using the long-form application or, alternatively, to pay the filing fee within fourteen days, warning that the complaint will otherwise be dismissed without prejudice.
Holdings
- The application did not provide sufficient information for the court to reasonably conclude that Thomas was unable to afford the filing fee, so IFP status was properly denied without prejudice.
- On renewal, Thomas must include financial information for his mother and any other person who financially supports him, or alternatively pay the filing fee.
- Any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith, and IFP status is denied for purposes of an appeal.
Questions Presented
- Whether Thomas's IFP application established that he was unable to pay the filing fee.
- Whether the court could require disclosure of financial support and deny IFP status without prejudice when the application omitted material financial information.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (7)
- Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948)(followed)
- Rosa v. Doe, 86 F.4th 1001, 1004, 1007 (2d Cir. 2023)(followed)
- Velasquez v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 24-cv-2035, 2024 WL 3202974, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. June 26, 2024)(followed)
- Miller v. Smith, No. 21-cv-2949, 2021 WL 2894973, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. June 2, 2021)(followed)
- Fridman v. City of N.Y., 195 F. Supp. 2d 534, 537 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)(followed)
- Brooks v. Aiden 0821 Capital LLC, No. 19-cv-6823, 2020 WL 4614323, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. July 22, 2020)(followed)
- Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…