Petroceli v. Varengold

S.D. New York

Petroceli v. Varengold

DecidedMarch 8, 2021

Docket1:21-cv-01212

StatusUnknown

This text of Petroceli v. Varengold (Petroceli v. Varengold) 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

Petroceli v. Varengold, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOMINGOS LUGAO PETROCELI, Plaintiff, 21-CV-1212 (CM) -against- ORDER DIRECTING PAYMENT OF FEES OR AMENDED IFP APPLICATION VARENGOLD, Defendant. COLLEEN McMAHON, 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 in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, 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 has not answered most of the questions on the IFP application. The Court is therefore unable to determine whether he can pay 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 21-CV-1212 (CM), 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). The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket. 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: March 8, 2021 New York, New York hie. Iu Wyk 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 DOMINGOS LUGAO PETROCELI, Plaintiff, 21-CV-1212 (CM) -against- ORDER DIRECTING PAYMENT OF FEES OR AMENDED IFP APPLICATION VARENGOLD, Defendant. COLLEEN McMAHON, 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 in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, 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 has not answered most of the questions on the IFP application. The Court is therefore unable to determine whether he can pay 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 21-CV-1212 (CM), 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). The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket. 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: March 8, 2021 New York, New York hie. Iu Wyk Chief United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Petroceli v. Varengold, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/petroceli-v-varengold-nysd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack