Dixon v. Biden

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided January 30, 2023·No. 1:23-cv-00748·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK YUSUF F. DIXON, Plaintiff, 23-CV-0748 (LTS) -against- ORDER DIRECTING ORIGINAL SIGNATURE JOSEPH BIDEN; KAMALA HARRIS, Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff brings this action pro se. Plaintiff submitted the application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), that is, without prepayment of fees, without a signature. Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[e]very pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s name – or by a party personally if the party is unrepresented.” See also Local Civil Rule 11.1(a). The Supreme Court has interpreted Rule 11(a) to require “as it did in John Hancock’s day, a name handwritten (or a mark handplaced).” Becker v. Montgomery, 532 U.S. 757, 764 (2001). Plaintiff is directed to resubmit the signature page of the IFP application with an original signature to the Court within thirty days of the date of this order. A copy of the signature page is attached to this order. 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). SO ORDERED. Dated: January 30, 2023 New York, New York

/s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge (c) Pension, annuity, or life insurance payments [] Yes cr (d) Disability or worker’s compensation payments [] Yes No (e) Gifts or inheritances [] Yes i No (f) Any other public benefits (unemployment, social security, lve 5 C] No food stamps, veteran’s, etc.) (g) Any other sources [| Yes If you answered “Yes” to any question above, describe below or on separate pages each source of money and state the amount received and what you expect to receive in the future. $230.00 Avion 24/106 Awtonth Ylos 495,06 Yood SYaxap 9 If you answered “No” to all of the questions above, explain how you are paying your expenses:

4, How much money do you have in cash or in a checking, savings, or inmate account?

5. De you own any automobile, real estate, stock, bond, security, trust, jewelry, art work, or other financial instrument or thing of value, including any item of value held in someone else’s name? If so, describe the property and its approximate value: N O

6. Do you have any housing, transportation, utilities, or loan payments, or other regular monthly expenses? If so, describe and provide the amount of the monthly expense: NO 0D

7, List all people who are dependent on you for support, your relationship with each person, and how much you contribute to their support (only provide initials for minors under 18): Tye Royal Nussern [ Vixo0) 8. Do you have any debts or financial obligations not described above? If so, describe the amounts owed and to whom they are payable: nr) / A Declaration: 1 declare under penalty of perjury that the above information is true. J understand that a false statement may result in a dismissal of my claims. / / 26 / 20279 Datéd Signature

XD) You) Name (last, Firs 0 Prison identification # (iF incarcerated) AN PR de. Wes Vk WY joo, Address City State Zip Code

LHO-9eI- 842 HN)» Cord Telephone Number E-mail Address (if available)

IFP Application, page 2

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

Dixon v. Biden, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Dixon v. Biden (Dixon v. Biden) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Becker v. Montgomery
532 U.S. 757 (Supreme Court, 2001)