Todie-Reyes v. Orellana

Filing 4

ORDER DIRECTING PAYMENT OF FEES OR AMENDED IFP APPLICATION: Plaintiff is directed to render payment of the filing fees or submit an AMENDED IFP application to this Court's Pro Se Office within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign this matter to my docket. 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 an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). Filing Fees due by 2/10/2022. AMENDED In Forma Pauperis (IFP) Application due by 2/10/2022. (Signed by Judge Laura Taylor Swain on 1/11/2022) (Attachments: # 1 Amended IFP Application) (dmg) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.

Download PDF
Case 1:21-cv-10444-LTS Document 4 Filed 01/11/22 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK EUGENE A. TODIE-REYES, Plaintiff, -againstCINTHIA CAROLINA REYES ORELLANA, 21-CV-10444 (LTS) ORDER DIRECTING PAYMENT OF FEES OR AMENDED IFP APPLICATION Defendant. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff brings this action pro se. He submitted the complaint without the filing fees or an IFP application. To proceed with a civil action in this Court, a plaintiff must either pay $402.00 in fees – a $350.00 filing fee plus a $52.00 administrative fee – or, to request authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), that is, without prepayment of fees, submit a signed IFP application. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915. By order dated December 9, 2021, the Court directed Plaintiff to either pay the $402.00 in fees or submit a completed and signed IFP application within thirty days of the date of that order. On December 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed an IFP application, but he does not fully answer the questions pertaining to his financial situation. In question 2, Plaintiff checks the box indicating that he is not presently employed, and he indicates that he last worked in March 2020. (ECF No. 3 at 1.) Plaintiff failed, however, to indicate his gross monthly wages at that time, instead writing, “undecided, HR dept. over site [sic].” (Id.). In question 3, Plaintiff checks the boxes indicating that he does not receive income from any of the listed sources, and in response to the question asking him to explain how he pays his expenses, Plaintiff writes, “I’m not, they are piling up.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff also indicates that he has “negative $3,000” in the bank, but that his monthly expenses include “phone $70,” and “MetroCard $120.” (Id.) Plaintiff lists an Case 1:21-cv-10444-LTS Document 4 Filed 01/11/22 Page 2 of 3 apartment in Rego Park (Queens County), New York, for his address and he also provides a cell phone number, but it is unclear how Plaintiff pays for these expenses. Because Plaintiff fails to supply sufficient information explaining any sources of income and how he pays his expenses, it is unclear whether Plaintiff has sufficient funds to pay the filing fees for this action. The Court is therefore unable to make a ruling on Plaintiff’s IFP application. Within thirty days of the date of this order, Plaintiff must either pay the $402.00 in fees or submit an amended IFP application. Plaintiff must answer the questions as they pertain to his current financial situation. If Plaintiff submits the amended IFP application, it should be labeled with docket number 21-CV-10444 (LTS), and address the deficiencies indicated above by providing facts to establish that he is unable to pay the filing fees. If the Court grants the amended IFP application, Plaintiff will be permitted to proceed without prepayment of fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). No summons shall issue at this time. If Plaintiff complies with this order, the case shall be processed in accordance with the procedures of the Clerk’s Office. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order within the time allowed, the action will be dismissed. 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 appellant demonstrates good faith when seeking review of a nonfrivolous issue). 2 Case 1:21-cv-10444-LTS Document 4 Filed 01/11/22 Page 3 of 3 The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket. SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York /s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge 3

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?