Augustin v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC

Filing 4

ORDER denying 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons stated in the attached order and memorandum, Plaintiff's IFP application is denied without prejudice to renew. Within fourteen days of the filing of this Order, Plaintiff must either pay the filing fee or file an amended IFP application bearing the applicable docket number for the respective action. Any amended IFP application must contain detailed information as to income Plaintiff received from any sources within the past twelve months. No summons shall issue at this time, and all further proceedings shall be stayed for fourteen days. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order, the Magistrate Judge will recommend that the District Judge dismiss the action in which Plaintiff failed to comply. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Vera M. Scanlon on 3/6/2014. (Rice, Liane)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------ X
:
PIERRE AUGUSTIN,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-against:
:
CAPITAL ONE US CARD,
:
:
Defendant.
----------------------------------------------------------- X
------------------------------------------------------------ X
PIERRE AUGUSTIN,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-against:
:
ENHANCED RECOVERY CO., LLC,
:
:
Defendant.
:
----------------------------------------------------------- X
------------------------------------------------------------ X
:
PIERRE AUGUSTIN,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-against:
:
P&B CAPITAL GROUP, LLC,
:
:
Defendant.
----------------------------------------------------------- X
------------------------------------------------------------ X
:
PIERRE AUGUSTIN,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-against:
:
APEX FINANCIAL MGMT.,
:
:
Defendant.
----------------------------------------------------------- X
1

ORDER
14-CV-179 (CBA) (VMS)

14-CV-180 (CBA) (VMS)

14-CV-181 (CBA) (VMS)

14-CV-182 (CBA) (VMS)

Vera M. Scanlon, United States Magistrate Judge:
On January 8, 2014, Plaintiff Pierre Augustin (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Augustin”), appearing
pro se, filed these four actions pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), 15 U.S.C.
§§1618 et seq.,1 alleging that each Defendant obtained his credit report without his consent and
for no permissible purpose. He seeks $1,000 from each Defendant. Plaintiff’s applications to
proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 are denied without prejudice as set
forth below.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court may waive the $400 filing fee to commence a civil
action upon finding that the plaintiff is indigent.

See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914-1915.

The

determination of whether a plaintiff qualifies for in forma pauperis status is within the discretion
of the district court. See DiGianni v. Pearson Educ., No. 10 Civ. 206, 2010 WL 1741373, at *1
(E.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2010).

A complaint may be dismissed if the plaintiff intentionally

misrepresents his financial status in his application for IFP status. See Choi v. Chem. Bank, 939
F. Supp. 304, 308 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).
Here, Plaintiff’s IFP applications state that he has earned no income whatsoever over the
past twelve months, whether from employment, government benefits, gifts or “[a]ny other
sources.” IFP Application at 1, ECF No. 2 (filed as ECF No. 2 in each of the above-captioned
1

Plaintiff has filed eight other FCRA complaints in this Court: Augustin v. Equable Ascent Fin.,
No. 12 Civ. 6069 (CBA) (VMS) (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 12, 2014) (ECF No. 17) (voluntarily dismissed);
Augustin v. Midland Credit Mgmt., No. 12 Civ. 6071 (CBA) (VMS) (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2014)
(ECF No. 23) (voluntarily dismissed); Augustin v. Receivables Perform Mgnt, No. 12 Civ. 6068
(CBA) (VMS) (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2013) (ECF No. 9) (voluntarily dismissed); Augustin v.
Calvary Portfolio Svcs, No. 12 Civ. 6067 (CBA) (VMS) (E.D.N.Y. June 10, 2013) (ECF No. 8)
(voluntarily dismissed); Augustin v. Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, No. 12 Civ. 6070 (CBA)
(VMS) (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2013) (ECF No. 7) (voluntarily dismissed); Augustin v. Experian, No.
12 Civ. 3804 (CBA) (VMS) (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 11, 2013) (ECF No. 14) (voluntarily dismissed);
Augustin v. Transunion, No. 12 Civ. 3805 (CBA) (VMS) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2012) (ECF No.
18) (voluntarily dismissed); Augustin v. Equifax, No. 12 Civ. 3803 (CBA) (VMS) (E.D.N.Y.
Nov. 1, 2012) (ECF No. 11) (voluntarily dismissed).
2

cases). Plaintiff has not provided sufficient detail upon which the Court may assess his financial
situation. In previous cases, Plaintiff has been informed that his IFP applications must include
sufficient information for the Court to make an informed assessment. See Midland Credit
Mgmt., No. 12 Civ. 6071 (CBA) (VMS) (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2013) (ECF No. 4) (the District
Judge denied Mr. Augustin’s request for IFP status without prejudice, based on his failure to
provide sufficiently detailed financial information); Portfolio Recovery Assocs., LLC, No. 12
Civ. 6070 (CBA) (VMS) (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2013) (ECF No. 4) (same); Equable Ascent Fin.,
No. 12 Civ. 6069 (CBA) (VMS) (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2013) (ECF No. 4) (same); Receivables
Perform Mgnt, No. 12 Civ. 6068 (CBA) (VMS) (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2013) (ECF No. 4) (same);
Calvary Portfolio Svcs, No. 12 Civ. 6067 (CBA) (VMS) (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2013) (ECF No. 4)
(same). Additionally, if Mr. Augustin has received income from the resolution of the several
FCRA actions he voluntarily dismissed between November 1, 2012 and the filing of the abovecaptioned Complaints, that income must be disclosed, as appropriate under any settlement
agreement. See supra note 1.

3

CONCLUSION
Plaintiff’s four IFP applications are denied without prejudice to renew. Within fourteen
days of the filing of this Order, as to each action, Plaintiff must either pay the filing fee or file an
amended IFP application bearing the applicable docket number for the respective action. Any
amended IFP applications must contain detailed information as to income Plaintiff received from
any sources within the past twelve months. No summons shall issue at this time, and all further
proceedings shall be stayed for fourteen days. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order, the
Magistrate Judge will recommend that the District Judge dismiss the action or actions in which
Plaintiff failed to comply.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
March 6, 2014

Vera M. Scanlon
VERA M. SCANLON
United States Magistrate Judge

4