Hall v. NYC Water Board

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedApril 3, 2024
Docket1:24-cv-02483
StatusUnknown

This text of Hall v. NYC Water Board (Hall v. NYC Water Board) 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
Hall v. NYC Water Board, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ANTHONY WINSTON HALL, Plaintiff, 24-CV-02483 (LTS) -against- Order Directing Payment of Fee or Amended IFP Application NYC WATER BOARD, ET AL., Defendants. 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 $405.00 in fees – a $350.00 filing fee plus a $55.00 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 states that he is unemployed, and he does not answer the questions about his last date of employment and his gross monthly wages at the time. Plaintiff further states that he has no source of income, but he does not answer the question asking him to explain how he pays his monthly expenses. Finally, with the exception of indicating that he has $100 in a bank account, Plaintiff does not answer the questions on the application about money in cash or a bank account, property owned, monthly expenses, dependents, and debts or financial obligations. Because Plaintiff provides insufficient information about how he is able to pay his living expenses without any source of income, the Court is unable to conclude, without additional information, that he is unable to afford the filing fees. Accordingly, within thirty days of the date of this order, Plaintiff must either pay the $405.00 in fees or submit an amended IFP application. If Plaintiff submits the amended IFP application, it should be labeled with docket number 24-CV-02483 (LTS), 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). SO ORDERED. Dated: April 3, 2024 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

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hall v. NYC Water Board, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-nyc-water-board-nysd-2024.