Karpilovsky v. Nassau Suffolk Hospital Council

Filing 6

ORDER: For the reasons that follow (Please See Order For Further Details), the application to proceed in forma pauperis is denied without prejudice and with leave to renew upon completion of the AO 239 Long Form in forma pauperis application ("L ong Form") attached to this Order. Alternatively, Plaintiff may remit the $402.00 filing fee. Plaintiff is warned that a failure to timely comply with this Order may lead to the dismissal of the complaint without prejudice for failure to pr osecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). So Ordered by Judge Joan M. Azrack on 3/31/2021. (Attachments: # 1 AO 239 Long Form in forma pauperis application ("Long Form")) (Ortiz, Grisel)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------X
MAUREEN KARPILOVSKY,

FILED 
CLERK 

3/31/2021 2:36 pm

For Online Publication Only
U.S. DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
LONG ISLAND OFFICE 

Plaintiff,
ORDER
20-CV-6399 (JMA)

-againstNASSAU SUFFOLK HOSPITAL COUNCIL, INC.
Defendant.
-------------------------------------------------------------X
AZRACK, United States District Judge:

Before the Court is the in forma pauperis application filed by Maureen Karpilovsky
(“Plaintiff”). (ECF No. 4.) For the reasons that follow, the application to proceed in forma
pauperis is denied without prejudice and with leave to renew upon completion of the AO 239 Long
Form - - - - - - - - - - - application (“Long Form”) attached to this Order. Alternatively, Plaintiff
in forma pauperis
may remit the $402.00 filing fee.
To qualify for - - - - - - - - - - - status, the Supreme Court has long held that “an affidavit
in forma pauperis
is sufficient which states that one cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for the costs
[inherent in litigation] and still be able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities of
life.” Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948) (internal quotation
marks omitted). The purpose of the statute permitting litigants to proceed - - - - - - - - - - - is to
in forma pauperis
ensure that indigent persons have equal access to the judicial system. Davis v. NYC Dept. of
Educ., 10-CV-3812, 2010 WL 3419671, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. August 27, 2010) (citing Gregory v. NYC
Health & Hospitals Corp., 07-CV-1531, 2007 WL 1199010, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2007)). The
determination of whether an applicant qualifies for - - - - - - - - - - - status is within the discretion
in forma pauperis
of the district court.

DiGianni v. Pearson Educ., 10-CV-0206, 2010 WL 1741373, at *1

(E.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2010) (citing Choi v. Chemical Bank, 939 F. Supp. 304, 308 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)).

The court may dismiss a case brought by a plaintiff requesting to proceed - - - - - ------ if the
in forma pauperis
“allegation of poverty is untrue.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A).
Plaintiff reports that she is employed and earns net bi-weekly wages in the amount of
$996.12. (See Docket Entry 4 at ¶ 2.) Plaintiff also reports having $75.00 in cash or in a
checking or savings account. (Id. at ¶ 4.) Although Plaintiff indicates that her “husband has a
fixed income”, she does not include the amount. (Id. at ¶ 3.) Plaintiff reports regular monthly
expenses that total $3,472.00 and credit card debt in the amount of $19,000. (Id. at ¶¶ 6, 8.)
Plaintiff also reports that she helps support her adult son, but does not provide any financial
information concerning that support. (Id. at ¶ 7.)
Given the incomplete responses provided by Plaintiff, her application is denied without
prejudice and with leave to renew upon completion of the Long Form application enclosed with
this Order within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order. Alternatively, Plaintiff may
remit the $402.00 filing fee. Plaintiff is warned that a failure to timely comply with this Order
may lead to the dismissal of the complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order
would not be taken in good faith and therefore - ---- ------ status is denied for the purpose
in forma pauperis
of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 31, 2021
Central Islip, New York
/s/ (JMA)
JOAN M. AZRACK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2