Louis v. Supreme Court State of New York County of Queens

E.D. New York

Louis v. Supreme Court State of New York County of Queens

DecidedJanuary 15, 2020

Docket1:19-cv-06705

StatusUnknown

This text of Louis v. Supreme Court State of New York County of Queens (Louis v. Supreme Court State of New York County of Queens) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Louis v. Supreme Court State of New York County of Queens, (E.D.N.Y. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT US DISTRICT COURT E.D.N.Y. EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JAN 15 2020 ‘ KHALID EVAN LOUIS, BROOKLYN OFFICE Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM & ORDER 19-CV-6705 (WFK) (LB) Vv. SUPREME COURT STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS, et al., Defendants.

WILLIAM F. KUNTZ, II, United States District Judge: On November 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant pro se action. By letter dated December 2, 2019, the Court informed Plaintiff that his submission was deficient as he failed to

pay the filing fee or submit an application for in forma pauperis relief. Plaintiff was provided with the in forma pauperis form and instructed that, in order to proceed, he was required to cure the deficiency within 14 days. On December 10, 2019, Plaintiff returned the form—signed but otherwise blank—with a stamp across all pages citing to Crandall v. State, 73 U.S. 35 (1867). (ECF No. 4). However, as every case addressing Plaintiffs argument has held, Crandall has nothing to do with the statutory requirement in 28 U.S.C. § 1914 that a plaintiff must pay a filing fee or be excused by reason of in forma pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See. e.g., Gaul

v. Chrysler Fin. Servs. Ams., LLC., 15-1337, 657 F. App’x 16, 19 (2d Cir. July 1, 2016); Erie v. Kansas, 19-CV-4083, 2019 WL 5787950, at *1 (D. Kan. Nov. 6, 2019); Neighbors v. Smith, 17- CV-4028, 2017 WL 1951000, at *2 (D. Kan. May 11, 2017); Walker v. Village Court, 17-CV- 390, 2017 WL 4220415, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2017) (Peebles, Mag. J.); Marrakush Society v. New Jersey State Police, 09-2518, 2009 WL 2366132, at *36 (D.N.J. July 30, 2009).

Accordingly, the action is dismissed without prejudice. 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 purpose of an appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962), The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to mail this order to the address of record and close this case.

SO ORDERED. as en s/WFK ILLIAM F. KUNTZ, United States District Judge Dated: January 14, 2020 Brooklyn, New York

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT US DISTRICT COURT E.D.N.Y. EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JAN 15 2020 ‘ KHALID EVAN LOUIS, BROOKLYN OFFICE Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM & ORDER 19-CV-6705 (WFK) (LB) Vv. SUPREME COURT STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS, et al., Defendants.

WILLIAM F. KUNTZ, II, United States District Judge: On November 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant pro se action. By letter dated December 2, 2019, the Court informed Plaintiff that his submission was deficient as he failed to

pay the filing fee or submit an application for in forma pauperis relief. Plaintiff was provided with the in forma pauperis form and instructed that, in order to proceed, he was required to cure the deficiency within 14 days. On December 10, 2019, Plaintiff returned the form—signed but otherwise blank—with a stamp across all pages citing to Crandall v. State, 73 U.S. 35 (1867). (ECF No. 4). However, as every case addressing Plaintiffs argument has held, Crandall has nothing to do with the statutory requirement in 28 U.S.C. § 1914 that a plaintiff must pay a filing fee or be excused by reason of in forma pauperis status under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See. e.g., Gaul

v. Chrysler Fin. Servs. Ams., LLC., 15-1337, 657 F. App’x 16, 19 (2d Cir. July 1, 2016); Erie v. Kansas, 19-CV-4083, 2019 WL 5787950, at *1 (D. Kan. Nov. 6, 2019); Neighbors v. Smith, 17- CV-4028, 2017 WL 1951000, at *2 (D. Kan. May 11, 2017); Walker v. Village Court, 17-CV- 390, 2017 WL 4220415, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2017) (Peebles, Mag. J.); Marrakush Society v. New Jersey State Police, 09-2518, 2009 WL 2366132, at *36 (D.N.J. July 30, 2009).

Accordingly, the action is dismissed without prejudice. 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 purpose of an appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962), The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to mail this order to the address of record and close this case.

SO ORDERED. as en s/WFK ILLIAM F. KUNTZ, United States District Judge Dated: January 14, 2020 Brooklyn, New York

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Louis v. Supreme Court State of New York County of Queens, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/louis-v-supreme-court-state-of-new-york-county-of-queens-nyed-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack