The opinion
~ FILED
IN cf chiga OFFICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT U.S, DISTRICT COURT E.D.N.Y.
EASTERNDISTRCT OFNEW YORK gk SPOS
KIM MCKENZIE,
LONG ISLAND OFFICE
Plaintiff,
ORDER
-against- 23-CV-6565(GRB)(AYS)
WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, et. al.,
Defendants. ,
nana nnnnnneennanesnnen ence □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ X
GARY R. BROWN, United States District Judge:
Before the Court is an application to proceed in forma pauperis filed by Kim McKenzie
(“Plaintiff”), acting pro se. See Docket Entry (“DE”) 2. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs
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) (“Long Form”). Alternatively, Plaintiff may pay the $402.00
filing fee.
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.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948)
(internal quotation marks omitted). “The purpose of the statute permitting litigants to proceed
IFP [in forma pauperis] is to insure that indigent persons have equal access to the judicial
system.” Davis v. NYC Dept. of Educ., 10-CV-3812, 2010 WL 3419671, at *1 (E.D.N.Y.
August 27, 2010) (citing Gregory v. NYC Health & Hospitals Corp., 07-CV-1531, 2007 WL
1199010, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2007)). The determination of whether an applicant qualifies
for in forma pauperis status is within the discretion of the district court. Davis, 2010 WL
3419671 at *1 (citing DiGianni v. Pearson Educ., 10-CV-0206, 2010 WL 1741373, at *1
(E.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2010)). The court may dismiss a case brought by a plaintiff requesting to
proceed in forma pauperis if the “allegation of poverty is untrue.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A).
Plaintiff's application does not include sufficient information for the Court to determine
her qualification for in forma pauperis status and raises more questions than it answers. See DE
2, generally. Plaintiff reports that she is employed and receives weekly pay in the net sum of
$437.00. id. 42. Additionally, Plaintiff reports that she has received income froma pension □
during the past twelve months but has not include the amount. /d. 43. Although Plaintiff
reports that she has $1,200 in cash or money in an account, she has not answered any of the
questions on the form concerning her expenses or debts. Jd. J 4, 6-8. Curiously, Plaintiff
included a residential address and telephone number in her complaint yet reports no expenses
associated therewith. Jd. see also DE 1. Nor does she include any expenses for items such
as food, utilities, and transportation. DE 2 at { 6.
Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff's responses do not include sufficient information
concerning her finances and raise more questions than they answer. Accordingly, Plaintiff can
best set forth her current financial position on the Long Form. Accordingly, Plaintiff's
application to proceed in forma pauperis is denied without prejudice and with leave to renew
upon filing the enclosed Long Form. Alternatively, Plaintiff may pay the $402.00 filing fee.
Plaintiff is cautioned that, once paid, there are no refunds of the filing fee regardless of the
outcome of the case.' 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.
' Plaintiff would be well-advised to avail herself of the free resources provided by the Pro Se Legal Assistance
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 (1962).
SO ORDERED. /s/ Gary R. Brown
Dated: September 2S, 2023 Hogf®ary R. Brown
Central Islip, New York United States District Judge
Program (“PSLAP”) run by Hofstra Law School in deciding how to proceed. Plaintiff may reach PSLAP by
telephone at (63 1)297-2575 or by email at PSLAP@Hofstra.edu.