You're viewing Docket Item 4 from the case Glass v. Commissioner of Social Security. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 1:13-cv-04026-ENV Document 4 Filed 07/30/13 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 22

FllED

IN CL.ERK'S OFFICE

U.S. DISTRICT COURT e.D.N.Y.

* JUL 3 0 2013 *

BROOKLYN OFFICE

MEMORANDUM AND
ORDER

13 CV 4026 (ENV)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
________________________________ x

ROBERT G. GLASS,

Plaintiff,

-against-

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendants.

________________________________________________x
VITALIANO, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff, Robert G. Glass, brings this pro se complaint seeking review of

the order of the Commissioner of Social Security denying him disability benefits.

Plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

For the reasons that follow, plaintiff is directed to pay the filing fee of $400

within 14 days of the date this Order is entered on the docket in order to proceed

with this action.

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., No. 10-CV-3812, 2010 WL 3419671, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 27,

2010) (citing Gre20ry v. NYC Health & Hospitals Corp., No. 07 CV 1531,2007

WL 1199010, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 17,2007)); Cuoco v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons,

328 F. Supp. 2d 463, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). Section 1915 of Title 28 of the United

States Code authorizes a court to dismiss a case brought by a plaintiff requesting

to proceed IFP if the "allegation of poverty is untrue," 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A),

Case 1:13-cv-04026-ENV Document 4 Filed 07/30/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 23

that is, the facts of the plaintiff's financial standing do not comport with the

statute's definition of poverty. Courts have found that 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.'" Hobbs v. County of Westchester, et aI., No. 00 Civ. 8170,

2002 WL 868269, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. May 3, 2002) (quoting Attwood v. Sin&:letary,

105 F.3d 610, 613 (11th Cir. 1997)); accord Matthews v. Gaither, 902 F.2d 877,

881 (11th Cir. 1990). The question of whether a plaintiff qualifies for IFP status

is within the discretion of the district court. Pinede v. New York City Dept. of

Environmental Protection, No. 12 CV 06344, 2013 WL 1410380, at *2 (E.D.N.Y.

Apr. 8,2013); DiGianni v. Pearson Educ., No. 10-CV-0206, 2010 WL 1741373, at

*1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 30,2010) (citing Maccaro v. N.Y. City Health & Hospitals

Corp., No. 07 CV 1413, 2007 WL 1101112, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 11,2007)). Nor

does it matter that the net worth statement is accurate, if it is disqualifying

under the statutory definition of poverty.

The financial declaration form that plaintiff has submitted ("Decl.") does

not satisfy the Court that he is unable to pay the Court's filing fee to commence

this action. Plaintiff states that he has $75,000 in cash or in a checking or savings

account. Decl. ~ 4. Moreover, plaintiff states that he has $207,000 in mutual

funds. Decl. ~ 5. Plaintiffs declaration establishes that he has sufficient

resources to pay the $400 filing fee to commence this action, and his request to

2

, .

Case 1:13-cv-04026-ENV Document 4 Filed 07/30/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 24

proceed IFP status is therefore denied.

Conclusion

Accordingly, plaintiff must pay the $400 filing fee within 14 days of the

date this Order is entered on the docket in order to proceed further. No

summons shall issue at this time, and all further proceedings shall be stayed

until plaintiff has complied with this Order or the time to do so has expired. If

plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee within the time allowed, the instant complaint

shall be dismissed without prejudice.

The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal

would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied

for purpose of an appeal. Copped2e v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45

(1962).

SO ORDERED.

Dated:

July 24, 2013
Brooklyn, New York

~ '"C' _-

ERIC N. VITALIANO
United States District Judge

3

/S/ Judge Eric N. Vitaliano