SESCEY v. YOUTUBE et al
| NENNET AKAY SESCEY |
| YOUTUBE and LEGAL SUPPORT |
| 2:2021cv03311 |
| July 21, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| GERALD J PAPPERT |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 18, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 5
MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by NENNET AKAY SESCEY. *no envelope attached*. (Attachments: #1 EMAIL)(rf, )
|
|
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS BEARING CIVIL ACTION NUMBERS 21-3311, 21-3315, 21-3355 & 21-3638 EMAILED TO PRO SE (rf, )
|
|
Filing 4
ORDERED THAT: SESCEYS MOTIONS AND APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF NO. 1 IN SESCEY V. YOUTUBE, ET AL., CIV. A. NO. 21-3311; ECF NO. 2 IN SESCEY V. KAMARA, CIV. A. NO. 21-3315; ECF NO. 2 IN SESCEY V. WALMART, ONN UNIT, CIV. A. NO. 21- 3355; ECF NO. 1 IN SESCEY V. BOOST MOBILE, CIV. A. NO. 21-3638) ARE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR LACK OF SUFFICIENT FINANCIAL INFORMATION TO ALLOW THE COURT TO DETERMINE WHETHER SHE HAS THE MEANS TO PAY THE FEES TO COMMENCE THESE CASES. IN DETERMINING WHETHER A PLAINTIFF IS ELIGIBLE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, THE COURT MUST ASSESS THE PLAINTIFFS FINANCIAL STATUS. SEE DEUTSCH V. UNITED STATES, 67 F.3D 1080, 1084 N.5 (3D CIR. 1995). WHEN EXERCISING ITS DISCRETION TO APPROVE OR DENY A MOTION TO PROCEED IFP, A DISTRICT COURT MUST BE RIGOROUS... TO ENSURE THAT THE TREASURY IS NOT UNDULY IMPOSED UPON. IN RE MOCK, 252 F. APPX 522, 523 (3D CIR. 2007) (PER CURIAM) (QUOTING WALKER V. PEOPLE EXPRESS AIRLINES, INC., 886 F.2D 598, 601 (3D CIR. 1989) (ALTERATION IN ORIGINAL)). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR A DISTRICT COURT TO SEEK ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT A PLAINTIFFS FINANCIAL STATUS WHEN QUESTIONS ARE RAISED BY HER IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION. ASSAAD-FALTAS V. UNIV. OF S.C., 971 F. SUPP. 985, 987 (D.S.C. 1997) ([T]HE COURT MAY INQUIRE INTO [A PLAINTIFFS] ALLEGATIONS AND DEMAND MORE SPECIFIC INFORMATION IF NECESSARY FOR A PROPER ASSESSMENT OF THE MOVANTS FINANCIAL STATUS. (QUOTING MONTI V. MCKEON, 600 F. SUPP. 112, 113 (D. CONN. 1984))). AFTER A THOROUGH REVIEW OF ALL FOUR OF SESCEYS MOTIONS AND APPLICATIONS, THE COURT IS UNABLE TO ACCURATELY ASSESS HER ABILITY TO PAY THE REQUIRED FILING FEES IN RELATION TO HER REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS BECAUSE NONE OF SESCEYS MOTIONS OR APPLICATIONS SET FORTH A CLEAR PICTURE OF HER FINANCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES. AT THE OUTSET, ENTIRE PORTIONS OF HER APPLICATIONS ARE EITHER BLANK OR MARKED N/A. ADDITIONALLY, THE FOUR MOTIONS OR APPLICATIONS CURRENTLY BEFORE THE COURT ARE INCONSISTENT WITH EACH OTHER WITH RESPECT TO SESCYS MONTHLY INCOME AND HER MONTHLY EXPENSES. FOR EXAMPLE, IN THREE OF HER APPLICATIONS, SESCEY LISTS AN AVERAGE MONTHLY INCOME OF $1,650 IN UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS, YET IN HER MOST RECENT APPLICATION SHE LISTS $0 FOR MONTHLY INCOME AND INDICATES THAT HER UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,675 ARE ON HOLD PENDING RELEASE. IN SEVERAL OF HER APPLICATIONS, SHE DOES NOT LIST ANY MONTHLY EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH DAY-TO-DAY LIFE AS ARE TYPICALLY SEEN IN MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS SUCH AS RENT OR MORTGAGE PAYMENTS, MOTOR VEHICLE EXPENSES, CREDIT CARD BILLS, OR THE COST OF FOOD, HEALTHCARE, AND UTILITIES. SHE HAS EITHER ENTERED ZEROS FOR EACH CATEGORY OR LEFT ENTIRE CATEGORIES BLANK. HOWEVER, ANOTHER OF HER APPLICATIONS LISTS APPROXIMATELY $350 IN MONTHLY EXPENSES WHILE HER MOST RECENT ONE LISTS OVER $900 WORTH OF MONTHLY EXPENSES. ON SOME OF HER APPLICATIONS, SHE LISTS NO DEPENDENTS, WHILE ON OTHERS SHE LISTS TWO CHILDREN AS HER DEPENDENTS. FINALLY, SHE REPEATEDLY ASSERTS HER BELIEF THAT SHE SHOULD BE EXEMPT FROM PAYING THE FILING FEES BECAUSE SHE IS BEING SUBJECTED TO HARASSMENT, DISCRIMINATION, AND EXPLOITATION. THIS ASSERTION, HOWEVER, DOES NOT PROVIDE THE COURT WITH ANY INFORMATION REGARDING SESCEYS FINANCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH IS THE RELEVANT INQUIRY IN CONSIDERING HER REQUESTS TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS IN THESE ACTIONS THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL SEND SESCEY A SINGLE COPY OF AN APPROPRIATE NONPRISONER APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, BEARING THE CIVIL ACTION NUMBERS OF ALL FOUR OF HER CASES. 2 3. IF SESCEY SEEKS TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, SHE SHALL WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER, COMPLETE THE FORM IN A MANNER THAT MAKES CLEAR TO THE COURT HOW SHE IS SUPPORTING HERSELF AND THAT CLARIFIES THE ISSUES NOTED ABOVE, AND DEMONSTRATES CONSISTENCY IN HER FINANCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN ALL FOUR PENDING ACTIONS. IF SESCEY IS BEING SUPPORTED BY OTHERS, SHE MAY INDICATE THAT FACT IN THE MOTION. ALTERNATIVELY, SESCEY MAY PROCEED WITH THESE CASES BY PAYING $402 (COMPRISING THE $350 FILING FEE AND $52 ADMINISTRATIVE FEE) TO THE CLERK OF COURT WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER IN EACH OF THE FOUR CIVIL ACTIONS SHE HAS INITIATED WITH THE COURT. 4. IF SESCEY FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER, HER CASES MAY BE DISMISSED WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GERALD J. PAPPERT ON 8/26/21.8/26/21 EMAILED TO PRO SE. (rf, )
|
|
Filing 3
PRO SE NOTICE RE:GUIDELINES (rf, )
|
|
Filing 2
COMPLAINT against LEGAL SUPPORT, YOUTUBE, filed by NENNET AKAY SESCEY. *IFP PENDING* *NO ENVELOPE ATTACHED*(rf, )
|
|
Filing 1
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS filed by NENNET AKAY SESCEY..(rf, ) (Main Document 1 replaced on 7/29/2021) (nd, ).
|
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Pennsylvania Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
