Samuels v. New York Department of Labor (NYDOL)

S.D. New York

Samuels v. New York Department of Labor (NYDOL)

DecidedSeptember 11, 2023

Docket1:23-cv-08004

StatusUnknown

This text of Samuels v. New York Department of Labor (NYDOL) (Samuels v. New York Department of Labor (NYDOL)) 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

Samuels v. New York Department of Labor (NYDOL), (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JUSTIN SAMUELS, Plaintiff, 23-CV-8004 (LTS) -against- ORDER DIRECTING PAYMENT OF FEE NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, OR IFP APPLICATION 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 in forma pauperis (IFP), that is, without prepayment of fees, submit a signed IFP application. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915. Plaintiff submitted with his complaint an IFP application captioned for the state court, using the state court’s form, but he did not answer all of the questions, and the Court therefore lacks information about all of his assets and income. Within thirty days of the date of this order, Plaintiff must either pay the $402.00 in fees or submit the attached amended IFP application. If Plaintiff submits the amended IFP application, it should be fully completed and labeled with docket number 23-CV-8004 (LTS). If the Court grants the 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 fails to comply with this order within the time allowed, the action will be dismissed without prejudice. 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: September 11, 2023 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JUSTIN SAMUELS, Plaintiff, 23-CV-8004 (LTS) -against- ORDER DIRECTING PAYMENT OF FEE NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, OR IFP APPLICATION 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 in forma pauperis (IFP), that is, without prepayment of fees, submit a signed IFP application. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915. Plaintiff submitted with his complaint an IFP application captioned for the state court, using the state court’s form, but he did not answer all of the questions, and the Court therefore lacks information about all of his assets and income. Within thirty days of the date of this order, Plaintiff must either pay the $402.00 in fees or submit the attached amended IFP application. If Plaintiff submits the amended IFP application, it should be fully completed and labeled with docket number 23-CV-8004 (LTS). If the Court grants the 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 fails to comply with this order within the time allowed, the action will be dismissed without prejudice. 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: September 11, 2023 New York, New York

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Samuels v. New York Department of Labor (NYDOL), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/samuels-v-new-york-department-of-labor-nydol-nysd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack