Jones et al v. ACS/ Queens Field office et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM & ORDER: Plaintiffs' in forma pauperis applications are denied without prejudice to renew. Plaintiffs are granted until June 28 to file separate, complete Long Form IFP applications providing the information neces sary to make an indigency determination, including an explanation of how the plaintiffs support themselves. Otherwise, they have until June 28 to pay the $402 filing fee. If plaintiffs fail to file separate Long Form IFP applications or to pay the filing fee by June 28, the case shall be dismissed. Ordered by Judge Eric R. Komitee on 6/3/2024. (PMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------x
ALYSIA DAVINA JONES and PIERRE MERLIN
KAMTCHI,
Plaintiffs,

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
23-CV-5742 (EK)(LB)

-againstACS/QUEENS FIELD OFFICE, ALETHEA
STOWE, NEW YORK STATE/OFFICE OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, and
KATHY HOCHUL,
Defendants.
------------------------------------x
ERIC KOMITEE, United States District Judge:
Plaintiffs Alysia Jones and Pierre Kamtchi filed this
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

ECF No. 1.

Chief Judge Laura Taylor

Swain then transferred the action to this court.

ECF No. 4.

Proceeding pro se, plaintiffs have moved for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis.

ECF Nos. 2, 8.

Those motions are denied

without prejudice to renew, for the reasons discussed below.
The IFP statute is designed to ensure that indigent
persons have equal access to the judicial system.

Davis v. NYC

Dept. of Educ., No. 10-CV-3812, 2010 WL 3419671, at *1 (E.D.N.Y.
Aug. 27, 2010). 1

A plaintiff seeking to proceed IFP must submit

Unless otherwise noted, when quoting judicial decisions this order
accepts all alterations and omits all citations, footnotes, and internal
quotation marks.
1

an affidavit stating “that the person is unable to pay” filing
fees “or give security therefor.”

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

He

or she must also include “a statement of all assets” the person
possesses.

Section 1915 authorizes a court to dismiss a

Id.

case brought by a plaintiff requesting to proceed IFP if the
“allegation of poverty is untrue,” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A),
and courts in this district regularly invoke that provision.
See, e.g., Miller v. Smith, No. 21-CV-2949, 2021 WL 2894973, at
*2 (E.D.N.Y. June 2, 2021); Humphrey v. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, No. 21-CV-1901, 2021 WL 1837791, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. May
7, 2021).

“When an applicant fails to explain how he supports

himself, courts generally regard his application as incomplete
and insufficient to establish an entitlement to in forma
pauperis status.”

Dan M. v. Kijakazi, No. 22-CV-664, 2022 WL

2069112, at *2 (D. Conn. May 19, 2022).
Here, plaintiffs’ financial declarations — which are
essentially duplicates of each other — indicate that they have
no assets or income, but offer no alternative explanation of how
the plaintiffs support themselves (or, as the case may be, are
supported by others).

See ECF Nos. 2, 8.

Plaintiffs left blank

the section of the form directing them to write their gross
monthly pay, and checked boxes indicating that they do not
receive income from any other sources, have no money in cash or
in a checking or savings account, have no assets whatsoever, and

have no financial dependents.

ECF Nos. 2, 8 ¶¶ 1-5, 7.

Despite

her lack of income or assets, Jones indicated that one of her
monthly expenses is “housing,” although she noted that she is
“really behind on payments.”

ECF No. 2 at ¶ 6.

Plaintiffs’ affidavits are insufficient to support IFP
status.

“Because no one can live on no income and no assets,”

affidavits asserting that the plaintiff has no income and no
assets without further explanation “must be incomplete and, by
extension, fail to support in forma pauperis status.”

Amanda M.

v. Kijakazi, No. 22-CV-353, 2022 WL 1395941, at *1 (D. Conn.
Apr. 29, 2022); see also Pierre v. City of Rochester, No. 16-CV6428, 2018 WL 10072449, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2018) (denying
an IFP motion because the plaintiff claimed he had no assets or
income but “offer[ed] no explanation for how he survives day-today or how his monthly expenses are paid”).
One potential explanation, which “a court may
consider” when “assessing an application to proceed in forma
pauperis,” is that the applicant has access to resources “from
those who ordinarily provide the applicant with the necessities
of life, such as from a spouse, parent, adult sibling or other
next friend.”

Fridman v. City of New York, 195 F. Supp. 2d 534,

537 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).

Those resources, though not the

plaintiff’s own assets or income, may be considered on an IFP
application.

Id.

But where, as here, the affidavits do not

“fully and candidly explain[] how [the plaintiffs] support”
themselves, or who else supports them, IFP status is
inappropriate.

Robert B. v. Kijakazi, No. 22-CV-1046, 2022 WL

4112082, *2 (D. Conn. Aug. 29, 2022).
Accordingly, plaintiffs’ IFP applications are denied
without prejudice to renew. Plaintiffs are granted until June 28
to file separate, complete Long Form IFP applications providing
the information necessary to make an indigency determination,
including an explanation of how the plaintiffs support
themselves.

Otherwise, they have until June 28 to pay the $402

filing fee.
If plaintiffs fail to file separate Long Form IFP
applications or to pay the filing fee by June 28, the case shall
be dismissed.

The Clerk of Court is directed to send two

separate Long Form IFP applications to plaintiffs along with
this Order.

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 the purpose

of any appeal.

Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45

(1962).

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Eric Komitee
ERIC KOMITEE
United States District Judge
Dated:

June 3, 2024
Brooklyn, New York