# Brown v. President/Founder Alma Realty Corp.

> District Court, S.D. New York · April 5, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10340227

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. New York
- **Decided:** April 5, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10340227

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that appellant demonstrates good faith when seeking review of a nonfrivolous issue

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DAMONTE BROWN,
Plaintiff,
1:22-CV-2648 (LTS)
-against-
ORDER DIRECTING PAYMENT OF FEES
PRESIDENT/FOUNDER ALMA REALTY OR AMENDED IFP APPLICATION
CORP.,
Defendant.
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 an IFP application, but his responses do not establish that he is unable
to pay the fees to bring this action. Plaintiff states that he is employed, but he does not list the
amount of his monthly wages; he also states that his last date of employment was December 11,
2019. He asserts that he does not receive any government benefits, and that he is “covered
through operations as legal representation for plaintiff party [sic].” (ECF 1, at 2.) Plaintiff also
states that he possesses less than $100 in cash or in a bank account, and in response to the
question in the IFP application about how much funds he possesses, he states “privacy
observances. Thanks.” (Id.) Plaintiff further asserts that he owns no property, but he does not
state whether he has any financial obligations, and if so, their amounts; in declining to reveal his
financial obligations, he again states “privacy observances.” (Id.) Thus, the Court is unable to
conclude that Plaintiff is unable to pay the fees to bring this action.
Accordingly, within 30 days of the date of this order, Plaintiff must either pay the
$402.00 in fees or complete, sign, and submit the attached amended IFP application. If Plaintiff
submits the amended IFP application, it should be labeled with docket number 1:22-CV-2648
(LTS), and address the deficiencies described above by providing all the necessary facts to

establish that Plaintiff is unable to pay the fees to bring this action. If the Court grants the
amended IFP application, Plaintiff will be permitted to proceed without prepayment of fees. See
§ 1915(a)(1).
No summons shall issue at this time. If Plaintiff complies with this order, this action shall
be processed in accordance with the procedures of the Clerk’s Office. If Plaintiff fails to comply
with this order within the time allowed, this action will be dismissed.
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: April 5, 2022
New York, New York

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10340227. Public record. Not legal advice.