The opinion
IN cet bE
K’S OFFICE
U.S. DI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT STRICT COURT □□□□□□□□
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK * 212020
neem nec nen ee en een ene nen nenemeeenenen eX
THURMAN JEROME BROWN, LONG ISLAND OFFICE
Plaintiff,
ORDER
-against- 20-CV-00020 (GRB)(AKT)
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, THE
COUNTY OF NASSAU, THE NASSAU COUNTY
UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM, THE NASSAU COUNTY
POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE NASSAU COUNTY
SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,
Defendants.
cree enen □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□
GARY R. BROWN, United States District Judge:
On January 7, 2020, pro se plaintiff Thurman Jerome Brown (“plaintiff”) filed another
complaint in this Court together with an in forma pauperis application. (See Docket Entry Nos.
1-2.) On January 15, 2020, plaintiff filed an application for the appointment of pro bono
counsel to represent him in this case. (See Docket Entry No. 6.) In support of that application,
plaintiff filed the required “Request to Proceed Jn Forma Pauperis In Support of the Application
for the Court to Request Counsel.” (/d.) For the reasons that follow, plaintiff's application to
proceed in forma pauperis is denied without prejudice and with leave to renew upon filing the
enclosed “Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long
Form)” (AO 239). Alternatively, plaintiff may pay the $400.00 filing fee. Plaintiff's
application for the appointment of pro bono counsel is held in abeyance pending resolution of
the filing fee issue.
To qualify for in forma pauperis status, the Supreme Court has long held that “an
affidavit is sufficient which states that one cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for
the costs [inherent in litigation] and still be able to provide himself and dependents with the
necessities of life.” Adkins v. E. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339, 69 S. Ct. 85,
93 L. Ed. 43 (1948) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff's application does not include
sufficient information for the Court to make such finding, particularly because the information
submitted plaintiff on January 7, 2020 is different from, and inconsistent with, the information he
provided on January 15, 2020.
Although plaintiff indicates on both applications that he is presently unemployed, he
avers he has been unemployed since October 25, 2019 on the first form (D.E. 2 §2) and
September 25, 2019 on the second form. (D.E. 6 at2 F91-2.) Plaintiff reports having received
net monthly pay in the amount of $4,428.16 on the second form (D.E. 6 at 2 42) yet reports □
having received no wages during the same time period. (D.E. 2,2.) On the earlier form,
plaintiff checked the box to indicate that he has received income during the past 12 month from
“business, profession, or other self-employment” but then added that “I started a business,
Thurman Brown Consultant, on September 5, 2018, to date I have earned no income nor do I
have any employees.” (D.E. 2,93.) Plaintiff did not respond at all to the other subparts to
question three. (D.E. 2,93.) On January 7, 2020, plaintiff averred that he has $811.87 in cash
or in a checking or saving account (D.E. 2, J 4) and, on January 15, 2020, he reports that sum as
“$163.03 checking.” (D.E. 6 94.) Plaintiff reports monthly rent in the sum of $1,440.00 on
the earlier form (D.E. 2, § 5), he reports monthly rent in the amount of $1,443.00 on the second
form. (D.E. 6,46.) In addition, on the earlier form, plaintiff lists that his wife and son are
dependent on him for support (although he did not include the amount he contributes for their
support as required by the form) (D.E. 2, 47), and plaintiff wrote “none” on the second form in
response to that question. (D.E. 6,97.) Thus, plaintiff's application raises more questions than
it answers.
The Court finds that plaintiff can best set forth his current financial position on the
Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form)” (AO
239). Accordingly, plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis is denied without
prejudice and with leave to renew upon filing the enclosed “Application to Proceed in District
Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form)” (AO 239). Alternatively, plaintiff may
pay the $400.00 filing fee.' Plaintiff shall either file the Long Form or remit the filing fee
within two (2) weeks of the date of this Order or this action will be 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 the purpose
of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45, 82 S. Ct. 917, 8 L. Ed. 2d
21 (1962). The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to the pro se plaintiff.
SO ORDERED.
/s Gary R. Brown
Gary R. Brown
United States District Judge
Dated: February 21, 2020
Central Islip, New York
' Plaintiff is cautioned that, once paid, there are no refunds of the filing fee regardless of the
outcome of plaintiff's claims. The Court suggests that plaintiff consider the pleading
requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 as well as whether there are any other
impediments to the adjudication of his claims, such as the statute of limitations.