From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kai Kang v. Citibank

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Aug 27, 2020
20-CV-6898 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2020)

Opinion

20-CV-6898 (CM)

08-27-2020

KAI KANG, Plaintiff, v. CITIBANK, Defendant.


ORDER DIRECTING PAYMENT OF FEE OR AMENDED IFP APPLICATION :

Plaintiff brings this action pro se. To proceed with a civil action in this Court, a plaintiff must either pay $400.00 in fees - a $350.00 filing fee plus a $50.00 administrative fee - or, to request authorization to proceed without prepayment of fees, submit a signed in forma pauperis ("IFP") application. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915.

Plaintiff submitted an IFP application, but his responses do not establish that he is unable to pay the filing fees. Plaintiff indicates that he does not have any income or "cash," but states that he is living "from [his] own savings." (ECF 1 at 2.) He further indicates that he has a brokerage account, though he "does not know [the] value" of that account. (Id.) Plaintiff's application thus does not show that he is unable to pay the filing fees.

Accordingly, within thirty days of the date of this order, Plaintiff must either pay the $400.00 in fees, or complete and submit an amended IFP application. If Plaintiff submits the amended IFP application, it should be labeled with docket number 20-CV-6898 (CM), and address the deficiencies indicated above by providing facts to establish that he is unable to pay the filing fees. If the Court grants the amended IFP application, Plaintiff will be permitted to proceed without prepaying the filing fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

Plaintiff has consented to receive electronic service of Court documents. (ECF 3.) No summons shall issue at this time. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order within the time allowed, the action will be dismissed.

The Court certifies under 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 an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that appellant demonstrates good faith when seeking review of a nonfrivolous issue). SO ORDERED. Dated: August 27, 2020

New York, New York

/s/_________

COLLEEN McMAHON

Chief United States District Judge


Summaries of

Kai Kang v. Citibank

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Aug 27, 2020
20-CV-6898 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2020)
Case details for

Kai Kang v. Citibank

Case Details

Full title:KAI KANG, Plaintiff, v. CITIBANK, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Aug 27, 2020

Citations

20-CV-6898 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2020)