James v. Board of Trustees of Interfaith Medical Center et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: James's IFP application fails to provide any facts that could allow the Court to conclude that she has insufficient resources to pay the $ 400 filing fee to commence this action. James's 2 IFP applicat ion is therefore denied and she is directed to pay the filing fee of $ 400 within 14 days of the date of this Order in order to proceed with this action. Because this Court denies James IFP status, her 3 motion for a PI/TRO is denied with le ave to renew after the filing fee is paid. This Court notes that even if James had paid the filing fee, it likely would have denied her motion for a PI/TRO. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. SO ORDERED by Chief Judge Carol Bagley Amon, on 6/10/2014. C/mailed. (Latka-Mucha, Wieslawa)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
-againstTHE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF INTERFAITH
MEDICAL CENTER; ALBERT WILTSHIRE;
J. FOSTER PHILLIPS IV; CHARLES GRANNUM;
DIANE PORTER, Jointly and Severally;
INTERFAITH MEDICAL CENTER; WILLKIE
FARR & GALLAGHER, LLP; ALAN LIPKIN;
CHAIRMAN OF DASNY, John Doe 1,
JUN l ., 10\4 ·IJc
AMON, Chief United States District Judge:
Pro se plaintiff Julia James ("James"), a former Trustee of Interfaith Medical Center, filed
this action on June 5, 2014. James seeks to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915. On June 9, 2014, James filed an Order to Show Cause for a Preliminary Injunction
and Temporary Restraining Order, and an affidavit in support of the motion for injunctive relief
seeking to, inter alia, enjoin any further actions or proceedings in Interfaith Medical Center's
pending Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern
District of New York ("the Bankruptcy Court"). See Interfaith Medical Center. Inc., No. 12-48226
("the Bankruptcy Case"). James filed a similar complaint on December 30, 2013, which the Court
dismissed without prejudice on March 31, 2014. See James v. The Bd. of Trustees oflnterfaith
Medical Center, No. 13-CV-7406 (CBA) ("the Prior Action").
The Court is not satisfied that James is unable to pay the $400 filing fee to commence this
action. James fails to complete any portion of the IFP application, except where she crosses out
pre-printed language that she is unable to pay the costs of these proceedings and instead states that
she is entitled to IFP relief because "[t]his is a petition in a voluntary, non compensated action
with no personal gain or benefit." See IFP Application at 1.
"The purpose of the statute permitting litigants to proceed IFP is to insure that indigent
persons have equal access to the judicial system." Glass v. Comm. of Social Security, No. 13-CV4026, 2013 WL 3938740, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. July 30, 2013) (citing Davis v. NYC Dept. of Educ.,
No. 10-CV-3812, 2010 WL 3419671, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2010)). Section 1915 of Title 28
of the United States Code authorizes a court to dismiss a case brought by a plaintiff requesting to
proceed IFP ifthe "allegation of poverty is untrue." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A). "The question of
whether a plaintiff qualifies for IFP status is within the discretion of the district court." Pinede v.
New York City Dept. of Environmental Protection, No. 12-CV-6344, 2013 WL 1410380, at *2
(E.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2013) (citing DiGianni v. Pearson Educ., No. 10-CV-0206, 2010 WL 1741373,
at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2010)); Maccaro v. N.Y. City Health & Hospitals Corp., No. 07-CV1413, 2007 WL 1101112, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2007). James's IFP application fails to provide
any facts that could allow the Court to conclude that she has insufficient resources to pay the $400
filing fee to commence this action. James's IFP application is therefore denied and she is directed
to pay the filing fee of $400 within fourteen ( 14) days of the date of this Order in order to proceed
with this action. Because this court denies James IFP status, her motion for a PI/TRO is denied
with leave to renew after the filing fee is paid. See Tafari v. Prack, No. 12-CV-703, 2012 WL
2571305, at *l n.4 (N.D.N.Y. July, 3 2012).
This Court notes that even if James had paid the filing fee, it likely would have denied her
motion for a Pl/TRO. "A party seeking a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction
must demonstrate '(l) irreparable harm in the absence of the injunction and (2) either (a) a
likelihood of success on the merits or (b) sufficiently serious questions going to the merits ... and
a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in its favor."' Y.S. ex rel. Chaya v. Yeshivat Or Hatorah
High School, 818 F. Supp.2d 539, 542 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (citing MyWebGrocer, LLC v. Hometown
Info. Inc., 375 F.3d 190, 192 (2d Cir. 2004)). "[M]otions for preliminary injunctions are
'frequently denied if the affidavits [in support of the motion] are too vague or conclusory to
demonstrate a clear right to relief under Rule 65.'" Id. (quoting 1 lA C. Wright & A. Miller, Fed.
Practice & Proc., § 2949 (2004)). James's threadbare affidavit would not have convinced this
Court that she is entitled to relief under Rule 65.
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken
in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. Coppedge
v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
/S/ Chief Judge Carol B. Amon
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
/ 0 , 2014
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?