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.

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