Roberts v. The NYS Department of Taxation and Finance
This text of Roberts v. The NYS Department of Taxation and Finance (Roberts v. The NYS Department of Taxation and Finance) 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.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JAZMINE I. ROBERTS, Plaintiff, 1:22-CV-0208 (LTS) -against- ORDER DIRECTING PAYMENT OF FEES THE NYS DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION OR AMENDED IFP APPLICATION AND FINANCE, 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 $402.00 in fees – a $350.00 filing fee plus a $52.00 administrative fee – or, to request authorization to proceed without prepayment of fees, submit a signed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) application. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915. Plaintiff submitted an IFP application, but her responses do not establish that she is unable to pay the fees to bring this action. Plaintiff states that she is unemployed and that, in the past 12 months, she has received public benefits. She does not, however, indicate what kind of public benefits she has received or the dollar amount of benefits received. She also does not indicate whether she has any cash in her possession or any money in a bank account and, if so, how much. In addition, she fails to indicate whether she possesses any other assets and, if so, their values. Finally, Plaintiff does not specify the amounts of her monthly expenses or other financial obligations. Thus, the Court is unable to conclude that Plaintiff is unable to pay the fees to bring this action. Accordingly, within 30 days of the date of this order, Plaintiff must either pay the $402.00 in fees or complete, sign, and submit the attached amended IFP application. If Plaintiff submits the amended IFP application, it should be labeled with docket number 1:22-CV-0208 (LTS), and address the deficiencies described above by providing facts to establish that Plaintiff is unable to pay the fees to bring this action. If the Court grants the amended IFP application, Plaintiff will be permitted to proceed without prepayment of fees. See § 1915(a)(1). Plaintiff has consented to electronic service of court documents. (ECF 2, at 9.) No
summons shall issue at this time. If Plaintiff complies with this order, this action 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, this 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 11, 2022 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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Roberts v. The NYS Department of Taxation and Finance, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-the-nys-department-of-taxation-and-finance-nysd-2022.