Ford et al v. Nassau University Medical Center et al

Filing 6

ORDER - Before the Court is the in forma pauperis application filed by Gary Ford, acting pro se, on behalf of the Estate of Ruby Webb ("Plaintiff"). (See ECF No. #5 .) 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 in forma pauperis application ("Long Form") attached to this Order. Alternatively, Plaintiff may remit the $402.00 filing fee. SEE ATTACHED ORDER for details. So Ordered by Judge Joan M. Azrack on 1/10/2022. c/m to pro se Plaintiff with AO239 Long Form (Coleman, Laurie)

Case 2:21-cv-06710-JMA-AYS Document 6 Filed 01/10/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
GARY FORD, on behalf of the Estate of Ruby Webb,

For Online Publication Only

Plaintiff,
-against-

ORDER
21-CV-6710 (JMA) (AYS)

NASSAU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, et al.,
Defendants.
----------------------------------------------------------------X
AZRACK, United States District Judge:
Before the Court is the in forma pauperis application filed by Gary Ford, acting pro se, on
behalf of the Estate of Ruby Webb (“Plaintiff”). (See ECF No. 5.) 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 in forma pauperis application (“Long Form”) attached
to this Order. Alternatively, Plaintiff may remit the $402.00 filing fee.
To qualify for in forma pauperis status, the Supreme Court has long held that “an affidavit
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 in forma pauperis is to
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 in forma pauperis status is within the
discretion 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.

Case 2:21-cv-06710-JMA-AYS Document 6 Filed 01/10/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 22

1996)). The court may dismiss a case brought by a plaintiff requesting to proceed in forma
pauperis if the “allegation of poverty is untrue.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A).
Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, filed together with the complaint, does
not include sufficient information concerning Plaintiff’s financial position. Plaintiff reports that
he is unemployed and has checked the box on the form to indicate that his only source of income
in the past 12 month is from “disability or worker’s compensation payments” but has not included
the amount he received as is required. (See ECF No. 2, ¶¶ 2-3.) Plaintiff also reports having no
money in cash or in an account, and no assets. (Id. at ¶¶ 4-5.) As for expenses, the only reported
regular monthly expenses disclosed by Plaintiff are $320.00 for “gas”, “electric”, and “estate
expenses”. Wholly absent are any expenses for items such as rent or a mortgage, food, and
transportation. (Id. ¶ 6.) Further, Plaintiff reports that he contributes $300.00 per month to
support his two children and has an “estate expense/debt owed $275,000.” (Id. ¶ 7-8.)
As is readily apparent, Plaintiff’s application raises more questions than it answers.
Because the Court finds that Plaintiff can best set forth his current financial position on the Long
Form, the present application to proceed in forma pauperis is denied without prejudice and with
leave to renew on the Long Form within fourteen (14) 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).1

1

Plaintiff is cautioned that there are no refunds of the filing fee, once paid, regardless of the outcome of the case.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is well-advised to consider the merit of his claims as well as any threshold issues such as any
limits on the Court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate his claims, including the statute of limitations. Moreover, a non-lawyer
is unauthorized to represent anyone other than himself in federal court. Plaintiff is encouraged to avail himself of the
free resources provided by the Pro Se Legal Assistance Program run by Hofstra Law School and he may reach them
by telephone at 631-297-2575 or by e-mail: [e-mail].

2

Case 2:21-cv-06710-JMA-AYS Document 6 Filed 01/10/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 23

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). The Clerk of the
Court shall mail a copy of this Order to the Plaintiff at his address of record.
SO ORDERED.

Dated:

/s/ JMA
JOAN M. AZRACK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

January 10, 2022
Central Islip, New York

3