Opinion
9:21-CV-0948 (LEK/ML)
09-23-2021
BRIAN CUATT, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION, et al., Defendants.
DECISION AND ORDER
LAWRENCE E. KAHN, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE.
I. INTRODUCTION
On or about August 23, 2021, plaintiff Brian Cuatt (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action by filing a complaint. Dkt. No. 1. Because Plaintiff neither paid the filing fee nor submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), the Court issued an Order closing the action and advising Plaintiff that, if he wished to pursue this action, he must comply with the filing fee requirements for commencing an action in this District. Dkt. No. 2 (“August Order”). On September 1, 2021, the Court received an IFP application from Plaintiff, as well a completed inmate authorization form. Dkt. Nos. 3 and 4. On the same date, the Clerk reopened the action. Dkt. No. 5. Plaintiff's IFP application has now been forwarded to the Court for review.
II. DISCUSSION
A civil action is commenced in federal district court “by filing a complaint with the court.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 3. The filing fees must be paid at the time an action is commenced unless an IFP application is submitted to the Court. 28 U.S.C. 1914(a), 1915(a). Section 1915 of Title 28 of the United States Code “permits an indigent litigant to commence an action in a federal court without prepayment of the filing fee that would ordinarily be charged.” Cash v. Bernstein, No. 09-CV-1922, 2010 WL 5185047, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2010). “The purpose of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is to insure that litigants will not be deprived of access to the judicial system because of their financial circumstances.” Monti v. McKeon, 600 F.Supp. 112, 114 (D. Conn. 1984) (citing Harlem River Consumers Co-op, Inc. v. Associated Grocers of Harlem, Inc., 71 F.R.D. 93, 96 (S.D.N.Y. 1976)). Where a plaintiff seeks leave to proceed IFP, the Court must determine whether the plaintiff has demonstrated sufficient economic need to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(1). “[T]he federal district courts are vested with especially broad discretion to deny state prisoners the privilege of proceeding IFP in civil actions against officials of the institution in which they are incarcerated.” Anderson v. Coughlin, 700 F.2d 37, 42 (2d Cir. 1983).
As explained to Plaintiff in the August Order, the statute governing a prisoner's application to proceed IFP in federal court, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, provides, in pertinent part, that an IFP request must be accompanied by “a certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint . . ., obtained from the appropriate official of each prison at which the prisoner is or was confined.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). In accordance with Rule 5.1.4 of the Local Rules of Practice for the Northern District of New York, a prisoner seeking IFP status in a civil action may satisfy the statutory requirements by submitting a completed, signed, and certified IFP application. N.D.N.Y. L.R. 5.1.4(b)(1)(A). A “certified” IFP application is one on which the certificate portion, at the bottom of page two of the form, has been completed and signed by an appropriate official at the plaintiff's facility. The certificate portion of the application requests information regarding funds and/or securities held on account to the inmate's credit over the preceding six months. Accordingly, inmates requesting IFP status may either submit a completed, signed, and certified IFP application as provided in the local rules, or they may submit certified copies of their account statements for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of a complaint as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2).
Upon compliance with the filing fee requirements, the Court must consider Plaintiff's request to proceed IFP in light of the “three strikes” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and, if appropriate, review the sufficiency of the complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not complied with the August Order. Plaintiff's IFP application has not been certified by an appropriate official at his facility, nor has Plaintiff submitted copies of his inmate account statements for the six-months preceding the date he filed his complaint in this action. Dkt. No. 3. To do away with these obligations would disregard a requirement clearly set forth in an Act of Congress. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) (providing that the prisoner “shall” submit the information in question). In addition, Plaintiff did not sign his IFP application, which is also required. L.R. 5.1.4(b)(1)(A)
In light of Plaintiff's pro se status the Court will afford him a final opportunity to file a renewed IFP application or pay the filing fee of $400. If Plaintiff wishes to renew his IFP application, he must, within 30 days of the date of this Decision and Order, submit either (1) a completed, signed, and certified IFP application; or (2) a completed and signed IFP application along with certified copies of his inmate account for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of his complaint. If Plaintiff fails to timely comply, this action will be dismissed without prejudice without further Order of the Court.
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED, that Plaintiff must, within 30 days of the filing date of this Decision and Order, (1) pay the $400.00 filing fee in full; or (2) submit a completed, signed, and certified IFP application; or (3) submit a completed and signed IFP application along with certified copies of his inmate account for the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of his complaint; and it is further
As noted above, certified account statements may be submitted in lieu of the completed Certificate portion of the IFP application. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2).
ORDERED, that in the event Plaintiff fails to timely comply with the filing fee requirements set forth in this Decision and Order, this action will be dismissed without prejudice without further Order of this Court and the Clerk shall close the case; and it is further
ORDERED, that upon Plaintiff's compliance with this Decision and Order, the file shall be returned to the Court for further review; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk shall serve a copy of this Decision and Order on Plaintiff along with a blank IFP application.
IT IS SO ORDERED.