Moore v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs et al
| Vermilyea Moore |
| United States Department of Veterans Affairs, The County Of Suffolk and BSI Financial Services |
| 2:2024cv00620 |
| January 26, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Nusrat Jahan Choudhury |
| Steven I Locke |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1346 Breach of Contract |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 11, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 8 Letter from Pro Se Office to Vermilyea Moore dated 3/11/2024 Re: This correspondence is regarding the blank summons enclosed for you to complete and return to us for issuance. (CV) |
| Filing 7 Letter from Pro Se Dept to pro se plaintiff Vermilyea Moore acknowledging receipt of civil action. (KS) |
| Filing 6 FILING FEE PAID: $ 405.00; Receipt Number: 200003072. (CV) |
ORDER. The Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"), ECF No. #5 , is DENIED and Plaintiff is directed to pay the $405.00 filing fee by February 16, 2024.The Supreme Court has long held that to qualify for IFP status, a plaintiff's "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) (quotation marks omitted). "The purpose of the statute permitting litigants to proceed IFP 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). The determination of whether an applicant qualifies for in forma pauperis status is within the discretion of the district court. Id. at *1. Under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(A), the court may dismiss a case brought by a plaintiff requesting to proceed IFP if the "allegation of poverty is untrue." The purpose of this provision is to "weed[] out the litigants who falsely understate their net worth in order to obtain [IFP] status when they are not entitled to that status based on their true net worth." Vann v. Comm'r of N.Y. City Dep't of Correction, 496 F. App'x 113, 115 (2d Cir. 2012) (quotation marks omitted). Notably, in Plaintiff's first IFP application, she did not include financial information in response to several of the questions. Elec. Order, Jan. 31, 2024. Where the application asked for debts or other financial obligations, Plaintiff wrote "taxes" with no amount. Id. Plaintiff also reported having no money or current income and expenses of at least $1,000 per month, but no debts other than taxes. Id. Additionally, in response to a question about gross wages, Plaintiff did not provide an amount and instead simply stated, without explanation, "nurse patient died waiting on new case." Id.Plaintiff's Long Form IFP application fails to follow this Court's Order and fails to make the required showing that Plaintiff cannot pay the filing fee to commence this litigation while also providing for herself the necessities of life. Plaintiff now indicates that she earns $12,000 per month, has monthly expenses of $650 per month, expects to receive funds from her mom's estate within the next twelve months, and owns a home worth $350,000. ECF No. #5 at 2-3, 5. Plaintiff claims that her most recent employment ended in April 2023, but does not explain where her current monthly income is coming from. Id. at 2. Plaintiff's statements between the two IFP applications are contradictory, and she has failed to show that she has insufficient funds to pay the $405 filing fee to commence this action. Plaintiff's request to proceed IFP is therefore denied. See Chowdhury v. Sadovnik, No. 17 CV 2613, 2017 WL 4083157, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2017) ("The question of whether a plaintiff qualifies for IFP status is within the discretion of the district court.").Accordingly, Plaintiff must pay the $405.00 filing fee by February 16, 2024 in order to proceed with this case. No summons will issue at this time and all further proceedings will be stayed until Plaintiff has complied with this Order. If Plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee within the time allowed, the Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice. 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).Ordered by Judge Nusrat J. Choudhury on 2/12/2024. (ASB)
|
| Filing 5 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Vermilyea Moore. (AMF) |
|
Filing 4
ORDER. Upon review of pro se Plaintiff Vermilyea Moore's application to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP"), ECF No. #2 , the Court finds that the application raises more questions than it answers. Plaintiff has not included financial information in response to several of the questions. For example, where the application asks for debts or other financial obligations, Plaintiff wrote "taxes" with no amount. ECF No. #2 at 2. Plaintiff also reports having no money or current income and expenses of at least $1,000 per month, but no debts other than taxes. Id. Additionally, in response to a question about gross wages, Plaintiff did not provide an amount and instead simply stated, without explanation, "nurse patient died waiting on new case." Id. at 1.To qualify for IFP 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). Accordingly, Plaintiff's application to proceed IFP 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 $405.00 filing fee. Plaintiff shall either file the Long Form or remit the filing fee by February 7, 2024 or this action will be dismissed without prejudice. 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).The Clerk of the Court shall mail a copy of this Order to the pro se Plaintiff at her address of record and note such mailing on the docket.Ordered by Judge Nusrat J. Choudhury on 1/31/2024. (ASB)
|
| Filing 3 Clerk's Notice Re: Consent. A United States Magistrate Judge has been assigned to this case and is available to conduct all proceedings. In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent, the assigned Magistrate Judge is available to conduct all proceedings in this action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to this Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. Any party may withhold its consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent.The form may also be accessed at the following link: #https://img.nyed.uscourts.gov/files/forms/MJConsentForm.pdf (DC) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Vermilyea Moore. (DC) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants Was the Disclosure Statement on Civil Cover Sheet completed -No,, filed by Vermilyea Moore. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (DC) |
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 New York 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.
