WILLIAMS v.VOLKSWAGEN OF SPRINGFIELD et al
| INAY WILLIAMS |
| VOLKSWAGEN OF SPRINGFIELD, CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE and LAW PLUS, LLC |
| 2:2023cv01537 |
| April 19, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| CHAD F KENNEY |
| Personal Property: Truth in Lending |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1601 Truth in Lending |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 26, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 7
ORDER THAT WILLIAMS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. WILLIAMS MAY PROCEED WITH THIS CASE BY PAYING $402 TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. WILLIAMS WOULD HAVE THIS COURT BELIEVE THAT WILLIAMS HAS ABSOLUTELY NO INCOME AND MIMIMAL ASSETS. THE COURT CANNOT ASSESS WILLIAMS'S FINANCIAL STATUS BASED ON THE INFORMATION IN THE MOTION BECAUSE IT IS NOT CLEAR HOW WILLIAMS PROVIDES HIMSELF WITH LIFE BASIC NECESSITIES SUCH AS FOOD AND SHELTER; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE CHAD F. KENNEY ON 5/26/23.5/26/23 ENTERED AND E-MAILED, FORMS NOT E- MAILED, MAILED OUT ON 5/26/23.(JL)
|
| Filing 6 AMENDED COMPLAINT against CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE, LAW PLUS, LLC, VOLKSWAGEN OF SPRINGFIELD, filed by INAY WILLIAMS.(JL) |
| Filing 5 INAY WILLIAMS APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS.(JL) (Main Document 5 replaced on 5/23/2023) (jl). |
|
Filing 4
ORDER THAT WILLIAMSS MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR LACK OF SUFFICIENT FINANCIAL INFORMATION TO ALLOW THE COURT TO DETERMINE WHETHER WILLIAMS HAS THE MEANS TO PAY THE FEES TO COMMENCE THIS CASE. 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 THE 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))). FACTORS RELEVANT TO WHETHER A LITIGANT QUALIFIES FOR IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS INCLUDE (1) POSSIBLE AID FROM FRIENDS OR RELATIVES; (2) POSSIBLE AID FROM CHARITIES; (3) REGULAR EMPLOYMENT; (4) EARNING POWER; (5) UNENCUMBERED ASSETS; (6) RETENTION OF COUNSEL; AND (7) THE PARTICULAR COST RELATIVE TO THE APPLICANTS FINANCIAL MEANS. IN RE KOREN, 176 B.R. 740, 744 (BANKR. E.D. PA. 1995). IN ASSESSING AN APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, A COURT MAY CONSIDER THE RESOURCES THAT THE APPLICANT HAS OR CAN GET FROM THOSE WHO ORDINARILY PROVIDE THE APPLICANT WITH THE NECESSITIES OF LIFE, SUCH AS FROM A SPOUSE, PARENT, ADULT SIBLING OR OTHER NEXT FRIEND. FRIDMAN V. CITY OF NEW YORK, 195 F. SUPP. 2D 534, 537 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (QUOTING WILLIAMS V. SPENCER, 455 F. SUPP. 205, 208-09 (D. MD. 1978)). WILLIAMSS FINANCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES ARE UNCLEAR FROM THE MOTION. THE MOTION DOES NOT LIST ANY INCOME, EXPENSES, OR ASSETS, OR OTHERWISE DESCRIBE HOW WILLIAMS IS SUPPORTING THEMSELVES. ECF NO. 1. AS WILLIAMSS FINANCIAL CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT CLEAR TO THE COURT, THE COURT CANNOT CONCLUDE AT THIS TIME THAT WILLIAMS QUALIFIES FOR IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS. 3 2. THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL SEND WILLIAMS AN APPROPRIATE NON-PRISONER APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, BEARING THE CIVIL ACTION NUMBER OF THIS CASE.2 3. IF WILLIAMS SEEKS TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, WILLIAMS SHALL WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER, COMPLETE THE FORM IN A MANNER THAT MAKES CLEAR TO THE COURT HOW WILLIAMS IS SUPPORTING THEMSELVES AND THAT CLARIFIES THE ISSUES NOTED ABOVE. IF WILLIAMS IS BEING SUPPORTED BY OTHERS, WILLIAMS SHOULD PROVIDE SPECIFIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS WHO SUPPORT WILLIAMS AND THE SPECIFIC AMOUNTS THAT THEY PROVIDE TO WILLIAMS EACH MONTH. IF WILLIAMS IS RECEIVING OTHER SOURCES OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT APART FROM FRIENDS, OR IF WILLIAMS HAS ACCESS TO ANY FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS, WILLIAMS SHOULD INDICATE THAT FACT IN THE MOTION. ALTERNATIVELY, WILLIAMS MAY PROCEED WITH THIS CASE 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. 4. WILLIAMS IS REMINDED TO INCLUDE AN ORIGINAL SIGNATURE ON THE COMPLETED MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, SHOULD WILLIAMS CHOOSE TO FILE ONE. 5. IF WILLIAMS FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDER, THIS CASE MAY BE DISMISSED WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE CHAD F. KENNEY ON 4/25/23.4/25/23 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. *MAILED IFP FORM TO PLAINTIFF. (jaa, )
|
| Filing 3 PRO SE NOTICE RE:GUIDELINES (JL) |
| Filing 2 COMPLAINT against CAPITAL ONE AUTO FINANCE, LAW PLUS, LLC, VOLKSWAGEN OF SPRINGFIELD, filed by INAY WILLIAMS. (IFP MOTION PENDING; NO FEE PAID)(JL) |
| Filing 1 INAY WILLIAMS APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS.(JL) |
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.
