Sherwood v. Vollers
| Debra A. Sherwood |
| Peter K. Vollers and Vollers Law |
| 3:2022cv00451 |
| March 25, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Sarala V Nagala |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Other Contract |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 19, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Debra A. Sherwood. (Gould, K.) |
Filing 11
ORDER denying #8 Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and #9 Motion for Reconsideration. The Court evaluates a litigant's financial status to determine whether she is eligible to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. 1915(a). Applicants are not required to "demonstrate absolute destitution," Potnick v. E. State Hosp., 701 F.2d 243, 244 (2d Cir. 1983) (per curiam), but must establish that they cannot afford to pay for both the necessities of life and the costs of litigation, Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). The Court remains unconvinced that Plaintiff cannot afford the $402 filing fee.To begin, the Court notes certain inconsistencies between Plaintiff's statement of her financial condition in her original motion (ECF No. #2 ) and her renewed motion (ECF No. #8 ), which were filed approximately 3.5 weeks apart from each other. The original motion lists Plaintiff's social security income as $1,152 per month, ECF No. #2 at 3, and her renewed motion lists her social security income as $952 per month, ECF No. #8 at 3. Neither Plaintiff's renewed motion nor her motion for reconsideration explains this discrepancy. Similarly, her original motion listed the balance in her checking account as $17,000, ECF No. #2 at 4, and her renewed motion lists her balance in her checking account as $9,905.54, ECF No. #8 at 4. Again, the discrepancy is not explained. The Court acknowledges Plaintiff's financial obligations and debts, see ECF No. #9 at 3, but is not convinced that she is unable to pay both for the necessities of life and the costs of litigation, even taking at face value the more updated balance of her checking account and her revised social security income figure. Additionally, "[a]ll litigants must make decisions about how to spend their money when they are contemplating litigation." Clark v. Pappoosha, No. 3:-21-cv-1690 (CSH), 2022 WL 960296, at *1 (D. Conn. Mar. 30, 2022) (quoting Brown v. Ruiz, No. 3:20-cv-1202 (KAD), 2020 WL 6395480, at *1 (D. Conn. Nov. 2, 2020)). Courts in this district regularly deny motions to proceed in forma pauperis filed by prisoners in cases where the plaintiff has an insufficient account balance at the time of filing, but there is evidence that the plaintiff at one time had a higher balance and chose to draw down the funds for other purposes. See Clark, 2022 WL 960296, at *2 (collecting such cases). Here, if her motions are taken at face value, Plaintiff appears to have spent more than $7,000 from her checking account in the 3.5 weeks between her original motion and her renewed motion. This spending outpaces her reported monthly obligations by a significant margin. It is difficult for the Court to justify waiving the filing fee for this litigation given the amount of money Plaintiff appears to have spent on other expenses and items in a short period of time. For these reasons, the Court remains unconvinced that Plaintiff qualifies for in forma pauperis status. Accordingly, her renewed motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. Plaintiff's request that the Court reconsider its April 4, 2022, order denying her initial motion to proceed in forma pauperis is likewise DENIED. See Cho v. Blackberry Ltd., 991 F.3d 155, 170 (2d Cir. 2021) ("The standard for granting... a motion [for reconsideration] is strict, and reconsideration will generally be denied unless the moving party can point to controlling decisions or data that the court overlooked - matters, in other words, that might reasonably be expected to alter the conclusion reached by the court."). All further proceedings in this matter shall be held in abeyance for 30 days pending Plaintiff's delivery of the filing fee in the amount of $402 (money order or bank check made payable to the Clerk of Court) to the Clerk's Office, 915 Lafayette Boulevard, Bridgeport, CT 06604. Failure to tender the filing fee within 30 days of the date of this Order, on or before May 23, 2022, will result in dismissal of this action. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 04/21/2022. (Kuegler, Adam)
|
| Filing 10 MOTION BY SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANT TO PARTICIPATE IN ELECTRONIC FILING by Debra A. Sherwood. (Gould, K.) |
| Filing 9 MOTION for Reconsideration re 7 Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Debra A. Sherwood. (Gould, K.) |
| Filing 8 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Debra A. Sherwood. (Gould, K.) |
|
Filing 7
ORDER denying #2 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Plaintiff's financial affidavit indicates that she has $17,000 in a checking account; that she owns a home valued at $450,000 (albeit with some debt); that she was receiving $54,000 per year in alimony until 2021; and that that she receives social security benefits and other income amounting to approximately $2,000 per month. Plaintiff also mentions that she is involved in family court litigation with the services of an attorney at a law firm. With these resources, Plaintiff does not qualify to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff is directed to pay the $402 filing fee for this action by April, 18, 2022, or this action may be dismissed. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 04/04/2022. (Kuegler, Adam)
|
| Request for Clerk to issue summons as to Peter K. Vollers. (Bozek, M.) |
|
Filing 6
STANDING PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 3/25/2022.(Bozek, M.)
|
|
Filing 5
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER. Signed by Judge Sarala V. Nagala on 3/25/2022.(Bozek, M.)
|
|
Filing 4
Order on Pretrial Deadlines: Amended Pleadings due by 5/24/2022. Discovery due by 9/24/2022. Dispositive Motions due by 10/29/2022. Signed by Clerk on 3/25/2022.(Bozek, M.)
|
| Filing 3 Notice of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of a Summons and Waiver of the Service of Summons by Debra A. Sherwood. (Bozek, M.) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by Debra A. Sherwood. (Bozek, M.) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Peter K. Vollers, filed by Debra A. Sherwood.(Bozek, M.) |
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 Connecticut 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.
