Cochran et al v. The Owner(s) of the name brand Toothpaste Close-Up

Filing 4

ORDER OF DISMISSAL: The Court dismisses the complaint without prejudice for failure to pay the $402.00 in filing fees or submit an IFP application. See 28 U.S.C. 1914, 1915. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 44445 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff Cochran and note service on the docket. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 11/17/2021) (sac) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JOSEPH MELVIN COCHRAN; RAUL W. SANTIAGO BRITO, Plaintiffs, 21-CV-8072 (LTS) -againstTHE OWNER(S) OF THE NAME BRAND TOOTHPASTE “CLOSE-UP”/ AND THEIR COMPANIES, ETC., ORDER OF DISMISSAL Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff Joseph Melvin Cochran, who is appearing pro se, brings this action individually and on behalf of Raul W. Santiago Brito, who has not signed the complaint. “[B]ecause pro se means to appear for one’s self, a person may not appear on another person’s behalf in the other’s cause.” Iannaccone v. Law, 142 F.3d 553, 558 (2d Cir. 1998); see also United States v. Flaherty, 540 F.3d 89, 92 (2d Cir. 2008) (“[A]n individual who is not licensed as an attorney ‘may not appear on another person’s behalf in the other’s cause.’” (citations omitted). The Court therefore construes the complaint as asserting claims solely on behalf of Plaintiff Cochran, the only person who signed the complaint. On September 30, 2021, the Court directed Plaintiff Cochran to either pay the $402.00 in fees that are required to file a civil action in this court or submit, within thirty days, a completed request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). That order specified that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the complaint. Plaintiff Cochran has not paid the filing fees or filed an IFP application prisoner. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915. CONCLUSION The Court dismisses the complaint without prejudice for failure to pay the $402.00 in filing fees or submit an IFP application. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff Cochran and note service on the docket. SO ORDERED. Dated: November 17, 2021 New York, New York /s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge 2

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?