From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mortimer v. Chapman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Feb 1, 2021
21-CV-0877 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2021)

Opinion

21-CV-0877 (CM)

02-01-2021

KIM MORTIMER; 60 91ST STREET CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. SHELLEY CHAPMAN, BANKRUPTCY JUDGE; HEIDI J. SORVINO, BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE; U.S. MARSHAL OFFICE, Respondents.


ORDER DIRECTING PAYMENT OF FEE OR IFP APPLICATION :

Petitioner Kim Mortimer, acting pro se, brings this application styled as a petition for a writ of mandamus. To proceed with a civil action in this Court, a petitioner must either pay $402.00 in fees - a $350.00 filing fee plus a $52.00 administrative fee - or, to request authorization to proceed without prepayment of fees, submit a signed IFP application. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915.

A non-attorney cannot appear on behalf of a corporation. See Lattanzio v. COMTA, 481 F.3d 137, 139-40 (2d Cir. 2007). Petitioner 60 91st Street Corporation can proceed in this action only if represented by counsel.

Petitioner submitted the petition for a writ of mandamus without the filing fees or an IFP application. Within thirty days of the date of this order, Petitioner must either pay the $402.00 in fees or submit the attached IFP application. If Petitioner submits the IFP application, it should be labeled with docket number 21-CV-0877 (CM).

The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Petitioner and note service on the docket. No answer shall be required at this time. If Petitioner complies with this order, the case shall be processed in accordance with the procedures of the Clerk's Office. If Petitioner 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: February 1, 2021

New York, New York

/s/_________

COLLEEN McMAHON

Chief United States District Judge


Summaries of

Mortimer v. Chapman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Feb 1, 2021
21-CV-0877 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2021)
Case details for

Mortimer v. Chapman

Case Details

Full title:KIM MORTIMER; 60 91ST STREET CORPORATION, Petitioners, v. SHELLEY CHAPMAN…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Feb 1, 2021

Citations

21-CV-0877 (CM) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 1, 2021)