Johnson v. Silva

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK TODD JOHNSON, Plaintiff, -against- GEORGE D. SILVA, ESQ.; BISOGNO AND 21-CV-5671 (LTS) MICHAEL C. MEYERSON, LLP; LAW ORDER OF DISMISSAL OFFICE OF DENNIS C. BARTLING; KELLY, RODE, AND KELLY, LLP; GUMO LLC; PICCIANO AND SCAHILL, PC; MOLOPSITZ AND DESANTIS, P.C., Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, submitted this action with an incomplete request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Because it was unclear whether Plaintiff had sufficient funds to pay the filing fees for this action, the Court was unable to make a ruling on Plaintiff’s IFP application. By order dated July 1, 2021, the Court directed Plaintiff, within thirty days, to either pay the $402.00 in fees required to file a civil action in this Court, or submit an amended IFP application to provide information to establish that he is unable to pay the filing fees. That order specified that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the complaint. On July 13, 2021, Plaintiff submitted an amended IFP application with the same deficiencies as in his original IFP application. In question 2, Plaintiff checks the box indicating that he is not presently unemployed, but he fails to answer the questions regarding his last date of employment and his gross monthly wages at the time. In question 3, Plaintiff checks the boxes indicating that he does not receive income from any of the listed sources, but he does not provide an answer in response to the question asking him to explain how he pays his expenses. In question 6, Plaintiff also fails to detail his housing, transportation, utilities, or other monthly expenses. Plaintiff’s amended IFP application fails to supply sufficient information explaining any sources of income and how Plaintiff pays his expenses, and therefore it remains unclear whether Plaintiff has sufficient funds to pay the filing fees for this action. Because Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s July 1, 2021 order, the complaint is dismissed without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915. The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on

the docket. 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 an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). SO ORDERED. Dated: July 21, 2021 New York, New York

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