Shiva Harrycharan v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.; Equifax Information Services, LLC; & Transunion, LLC.

• Court: District Court, E.D. New York
• Decided: October 27, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-05105
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------x SHIVA HARRYCHARAN,

Plaintiff, ORDER -against- 25-CV-5105 (NRM) (PK) EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.; EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC; & TRANSUNION, LLC.,

Defendants. --------------------------------------------------------------x NINA R. MORRISON, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Shiva Harrycharan brings this pro se action, along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). ECF Nos. 1, 2. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) is denied. In order to proceed with this action, Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of this Order to either file a Long Form IFP application or to pay the $405.00 filing fee. “The purpose of the statute permitting litigants to proceed IFP is to ensure that indigent persons have equal access to the judicial system.” Davis v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., No. 10-CV-3812 (KAM), 2010 WL 3419671, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2010) (citing Gregory v. N.Y.C. Health & Hosps. Corp., No. 07 CV 1531 (BMC), 2007 WL 1199010, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2007)); see also Cuoco v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 328 F. Supp. 2d 463, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). A plaintiff seeking to proceed IFP must submit an affidavit stating “that [he or she] is unable to pay” filing fees “or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Section 1915 authorizes a court to dismiss a case brought by a plaintiff requesting to proceed IFP if the “allegation of poverty is untrue,” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A), and courts in this district often treat

that dismissal provision as applicable when a litigant’s statement of assets fails to establish the level of poverty required under the IFP statute, see, e.g., Miller v. Smith, No. 21-CV-2949 (AKT), 2021 WL 2894973, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. June 2, 2021); Humphrey v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, No. 21-CV-1901 (RPK), 2021 WL 1837791, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. May 7, 2021). “The question of whether a plaintiff qualifies for IFP status is within the discretion of the district court.” Grimes v. Sil, No. 19-CV-1066, 2019

WL 981639, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2019). “If it appears that an applicant’s access to court has not been blocked by his financial condition; rather that he is merely in the position of having to weigh the financial constraints posed if he pursues his position against the merits of his case, then a court properly exercises its discretion to deny the application.” Brooks v. Aiden 0821 Capital LLC, No. 19-CV-6823 (AMD), 2020 WL 4614323, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. July 22, 2020) (quoting Fridman v. City of New York, 195 F. Supp. 2d 534, 537 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (citation modified).

Here, Plaintiff states that she is employed and earns $2,700.00 a month, receives income from business, professional, or other self-employment, and has $213.00 in a checking or savings account. ECF No. 2. She states that her monthly expenses are $1,000.00 for rent and $60.00 for internet service. Id. She has two financial dependents: her brother, who receives $500.00 in support, and her sister, who receives $400.00 in support. Id. Based on this information, it is unclear whether Plaintiff is truly indigent and unable to pay the filing fee to bring this action. Accordingly, if she wishes to proceed in forma pauperis, she must file a Long Form IFP application. She may also simply

pay the filing fee if she wishes to proceed with this action immediately. CONCLUSION Accordingly, Plaintiff’s IFP application is denied without prejudice. To proceed with this action, Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of this Order to either file a Long Form IFP application or to pay the $405.00 filing fee. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a Long Form IFP application to Plaintiff, along with a copy of this Order, and note the mailing on the docket. All further proceedings shall be stayed. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the

purpose of any appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962). SO ORDERED.

/s/ Nina R. Morrison NINA R. MORRISON United States District Judge

Dated: October 27, 2025 Brooklyn, New York