Brown v. Board of Directions

S.D. New York

Brown v. Board of Directions

DecidedApril 1, 2022

Docket1:22-cv-02646

StatusUnknown

This text of Brown v. Board of Directions (Brown v. Board of Directions) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brown v. Board of Directions, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DAMONTE BROWN, Plaintiff, 22-CV-2646 (LTS) -against- Order Directing Payment of Fee or Amended THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, THE DOOR IFP Application NYC, Defendant. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff brings this action pro se. 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 without prepayment of fees, submit a signed IFP application. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915. Plaintiff submitted an IFP application, but his responses do not establish that he is unable to pay the filing fees. Plaintiff either did not answer the questions, or he wrote “privacy observances” in response to the questions about his financial circumstances (ECF 1.) The Court is thus unable to conclude that Plaintiff is unable to afford the filing fees. Accordingly, within thirty days of the date of this order, Plaintiff must either pay the $402.00 in fees or submit an amended IFP application. If Plaintiff submits the amended IFP application, it should be labeled with docket number 22-CV-2646 (LTS), be fully completed, and address the deficiencies described 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 in forma pauperis 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). Plaintiff consents to electronic service. (ECF 2 at 9.) SO ORDERED. Dated: April 1, 2022 New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DAMONTE BROWN, Plaintiff, 22-CV-2646 (LTS) -against- Order Directing Payment of Fee or Amended THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, THE DOOR IFP Application NYC, Defendant. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff brings this action pro se. 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 without prepayment of fees, submit a signed IFP application. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915. Plaintiff submitted an IFP application, but his responses do not establish that he is unable to pay the filing fees. Plaintiff either did not answer the questions, or he wrote “privacy observances” in response to the questions about his financial circumstances (ECF 1.) The Court is thus unable to conclude that Plaintiff is unable to afford the filing fees. Accordingly, within thirty days of the date of this order, Plaintiff must either pay the $402.00 in fees or submit an amended IFP application. If Plaintiff submits the amended IFP application, it should be labeled with docket number 22-CV-2646 (LTS), be fully completed, and address the deficiencies described 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 in forma pauperis 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). Plaintiff consents to electronic service. (ECF 2 at 9.) SO ORDERED. Dated: April 1, 2022 New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Brown v. Board of Directions, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-board-of-directions-nysd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack