The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
VICTOR JORDAN and COMMITTEE TO
ELECT JORDAN, :
Plaintiffs, :
: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
– against –
: 22-CV-5657 (AMD)
N.Y.C CAMPAIGN FINANCE BOARD, MARK :
P. GRIFFIN, FREDERICK P. SCHAFER,
:
CAMERON FERRANTE, and CHERYL R.
LAROSE, :
:
Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------- X
ANN M. DONNELLY, United States District Judge.
:
On September 19, 2022, the pro se plaintiff filed this action pursuant to, among other
:
things, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiff also submitte:d an application to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Fo: r the reasons discussed below, the
:
plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) is denied.
:
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. NYC Dept. of Educ., No. 10-CV-3812,
2010 WL 3419671, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2010) (citing Gregory v. NYC Health & Hosp.
Corp., No. 07-CV-1531, 2007 WL 1199010, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2007)); 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 the person is unable to pay” filing fees “or give
security therefor” and must also include “a statement of all assets” the person possesses. 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, 2021 WL 2894973, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. June 2, 2021); Humphrey v. U.S.
Army Corps of Eng’r, No. 21-CV-1901, 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).
In his financial declaration form (“Decl.”), the plaintiff states that he is unemployed and
does not receive any other income, has $800.00 in a checking or savings account, and no
dependents. (Decl. ¶¶ 4, 7.) He also says that he pays $800.00 a month for rent, $127.00 a
month for transportation, and $105.00 a month for internet and phone service. (Decl. ¶ 6.)
Based on the plaintiff’s financial declaration form, the Court is not satisfied that he cannot pay
the filing fee to bring this action.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the plaintiff’s IFP application is denied. The plaintiff is granted 14 days
leave from the entry of this Order to file a Long Form IFP application or to pay the $402 filing
fee in order to proceed with this action.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to send a Long Form IFP application to the
plaintiff along with this Order. All further proceedings will 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/Ann M. Donnelly
___________________________
ANN M. DONNELLY
United States District Judge
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
October 25, 2022