Green v. Debrule et al
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Although plaintiff states that she has monthly expenses including a mortgage and a home equity line of credit, her financial declaration establishes that she has sufficient resources to pay the $ 400.00 filing fee to commence this action. Accordingly, her 2 request to proceed IFP is therefore denied. Plaintiff must pay the $ 400.00 filing fee within 14 days of the date of this Order in order to proceed further. If plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee within the time allowed, the instant complaint shall be dismissed without prejudice. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. SO ORDERED by Judge William F. Kuntz, II on 8/5/2015. C/mailed. (Latka-Mucha, Wieslawa)
* AOO 0 5 2015 *
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
15 CV 4546 (WKF)
-againstVINCENT DEBRULE, Captain;
NYC DEPT. OF CORRECTION,
KUNTZ, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff Telva Green brings this pro se complaint alleging violations of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000(e) to 2000e-17 ("Title VII") and the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. ("the ADEA''). Plaintiff seeks to
proceed informa pauperis (IFP) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. For the reasons that follow,
plaintiff is directed to pay the statutory filing fee of $400.00 within fourteen (14) days of the date
of this Order in order to proceed with this action.
The purpose of the statute permitting litigants to proceed IFP is to insure that indigent
persons have equal access to the judicial system. Davis v. NYC Dept. of Educ., No. 10 CV 3812,
Title VII and the ADEA does not permit the imposition of liability on individuals in their
individual or representative capacities. See McMahon v. Napolitano, No. 13 CV 1404, 2013 WL
1410382, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2013) (noting that Title VII does not provide for individual liability);
Guerra v. Jones, 421 Fed.Appx. 15, 17 (2d Cir. 2011) (noting that the ADEA does not "subject
individuals, even those with supervisory liability over [a] plaintiff, to personal liability").
2010 WL 3419671, at* 1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2010) (citing Gregory v. NYC Health & Hospitals
QQrp., No. 07 CV 1531, 2007 WL 1199010, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2007)); Cuoco v. U.S.
Bureau of Prisons, 328 F. Supp. 2d 463, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). 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). Courts have
found that the "purpose of this provision is to 'weed out the litigants who falsely understate their
net worth in order to obtain [IFP] status when they are not entitled to that status based on their
true net worth."' Hobbs v. County of Westchester, et al., No. 00 Civ. 8170, 2002 WL 868269, at
*2 (S.D.N.Y. May 3, 2002) (quoting Attwood v. Singletary, 105 F.3d 610, 613 (11th Cir.
1997)); accord Matthews v. Gaither, 902 F.2d 877, 881 (11th Cir. 1990). 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 06344, 2013 WL 1410380, at *2
(E.D.N.Y. Apr. 8, 2013); DiGianni v. Pearson Educ .. No. 10 CV 0206, 2010 WL 1741373, at *1
(E.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2010) (citing Maccaro v. N.Y. City Health & Hospitals Corp .. No. 07 CV
1413, 2007 WL 1101112, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2007)).
The financial declaration form that plaintiff has submitted ("Deel.") does not satisfy the
Court that she is unable to pay the Court's filing fee to commence this action. Plaintiff states that
she is presently employed and her gross wages are $2,800.00, bi-weekly and her take home wages
2. Moreover, she states that she owns a home that is valued at $150,00.00.
5. She presently has $600.00 in a checking or savings account.
plaintiff states that she has monthly expenses including a mortgage and a home equity line of
credit, her financial declaration establishes that she has sufficient resources to pay the $400.00
filing fee to commence this action.
6. Accordingly, her request to proceed IFP is therefore
Plaintiff must pay the $400.00 filing fee within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order
in order to proceed further. No summons shall issue at this time and all further proceedings shall
be stayed for fourteen (14) days or until plaintiff has complied with this Order. If plaintiff fails to
pay the filing fee within the time allowed, the instant complaint shall be dismissed without
prejudice. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be
taken in good faith and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. Coppedge v.
United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
/S/ Judge William K. Kuntz, II
WILLIAM K. KUN , II
United States District Judg
Dated: August 5, 2015
Brooklyn, New York
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?