Duverger v. Connecticut Family Orthopedics
ORDER (see attached) directing Plaintiff to file an amended, fully detailed and accurate, financial affidavit in support of his 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on or before May 16, 2013. Signed by Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr. on April 25, 2013.(Dorais, L.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
MICKEL A. DUVERGER,
No. 3:13 - CV - 488 (CSH)
APRIL 25, 2013
CONNECTICUT FAMILY ORTHOPEDICS,
HAIGHT, Senior District Judge:
Plaintiff Mickel Duverger has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and the requisite supporting financial affidavit. Doc. #2. In considering the
motion, the Court has reviewed the appended financial affidavit and determined that it lacks
sufficient detail and accuracy to enable the Court to make a reasoned ruling on the motion.
“[I]t is well established that the ability to proceed IFP is a privilege, not a right, and that the
court system depends on the honesty and forthrightness of applicants to ensure that the privilege is
not being abused.” Waters v. King, No. 11 CIV. 3267(JMF), 2012 WL 1889144, at *3 (S.D.N.Y.
May 24, 2012) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Moreover, courts within this Circuit have
consistently recognized the importance of a comprehensive and accurate financial affidavit for proper
consideration of an IFP motion. See, e.g., Vann v. Comm’r of N.Y. City Dept. of Corr., 496 F. App’x
113, 115 (2d Cir. 2012) (“dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(A) is certainly appropriate where a plaintiff
conceals or misrepresents his or her financial assets or history in bad faith to obtain in forma
pauperis status); Bey v. Syracuse, 155 F.R.D. 413, 413-14 (N.D.N.Y. 1994) (denying IFP motion and
dismissing action “[b]ecause plaintiffs have not submitted an affidavit which this court considers
statutorily sufficient”); Fuentes v. Tilles, No. 3:09mc79(WIG), 2009 WL 1043872, at * 1 (D.Conn.
Mar. 27, 2009) (cautioning plaintiff that discrepancies in his three financial affidavits suggest that
he “has not taken [seriously] his obligation to complete this sworn financial affidavit as accurately
In the case at bar, the Court has noted a number of omissions and inaccuracies in Plaintiff’s
financial affidavit. First, Plaintiff indicates that he receives “social security,” “disability,” or
“workers’ compensation” of “$492” weekly. Doc. #2, p. 3. He fails, however, to specify which of
these particular benefits he receives or whether $492 is an aggregate sum for all three. Second,
Plaintiff includes that he owns a 2012 Nissan Altima but lists its value at $2,000, an amount so low
as to strain credibility.1 Id., p. 4. Third, Plaintiff specifies that he owns “100 shares” of stock with
“the ticker symbol” of “DDD.” Id., p. 4. He does not, however, provide the name, value, yield
and/or income from said shares of stock. Fourth, Plaintiff provides a “[t]otal amount of monthly
obligations” of “$150,” an amount patently inconsistent with the various itemized expenses he has
listed above that total. Id., p. 4-5. Fifth, with respect to “[o]ther information pertinent to financial
status,” Plaintiff has inserted what appears to be “Gas $500 monthly.” Id., p. 5. The Court cannot
discern the meaning of this entry – whether it indicates, for example, gasoline expenses for his motor
For example, the Kelly Blue Book value of a 2012 Nissan Altima is listed at $19,526.
See www.kbb.com/nissan/altima/2012-nissan-altima/25/ . Moreover, a brief perusal of the category
“Used Nissan Vehicles for Sale” indicates that a used vehicle of this year and model commonly sells
for approximately $13,500 to $21,995. www.kbb.com/cars-for-sale/cars/used-cars/nissan/altima .
vehicle, natural gas as a utility, gas or gasoline stocks, or something else.2
Given the inaccuracies and ambiguities contained in his financial affidavit, the Court hereby
directs Plaintiff to file an amended, fully detailed and accurate, financial affidavit on or before May
Such affidavit must both supplement his financial information and correct any
inaccuracies contained in the previously filed affidavit. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order,
his IFP motion will be denied as lacking a sufficient factual basis.
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: New Haven, Connecticut
April 25, 2013
/s/Charles S. Haight, Jr.
CHARLES S. HAIGHT, JR.
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Adding to the mystery is Plaintiff’s notation that he pays “$0” next to “Gas bill per
month.” Doc. #2, p. 4.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?