Filed: Jan. 10, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 10, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM & ORDER JOANNA SEYBERT , District Judge . On June 13, 2018, pro se plaintiffs Jay Brodsky ("Brodsky") 1 and Donna Martin ("Martin" and together, "Plaintiffs") filed two (2) Complaints together with a single application to proceed in forma pauperis, signed by both Plaintiffs, with each Complaint. ( See Docket Nos. 18-CV-3484 and 18-CV-3486.) On June 18, 2018, Brodsky filed another Complaint together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. ( See Docket No. 18-CV-
Summary: MEMORANDUM & ORDER JOANNA SEYBERT , District Judge . On June 13, 2018, pro se plaintiffs Jay Brodsky ("Brodsky") 1 and Donna Martin ("Martin" and together, "Plaintiffs") filed two (2) Complaints together with a single application to proceed in forma pauperis, signed by both Plaintiffs, with each Complaint. ( See Docket Nos. 18-CV-3484 and 18-CV-3486.) On June 18, 2018, Brodsky filed another Complaint together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. ( See Docket No. 18-CV-3..
More
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
JOANNA SEYBERT, District Judge.
On June 13, 2018, pro se plaintiffs Jay Brodsky ("Brodsky")1 and Donna Martin ("Martin" and together, "Plaintiffs") filed two (2) Complaints together with a single application to proceed in forma pauperis, signed by both Plaintiffs, with each Complaint. (See Docket Nos. 18-CV-3484 and 18-CV-3486.) On June 18, 2018, Brodsky filed another Complaint together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (See Docket No. 18-CV-3588.)
For the reasons that follow, the applications to proceed in forma pauperis are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO RENEW UPON COMPLETION OF THE AO 239 IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION FORM TOGETHER WITH A COPY OF THE "OFFICIAL BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES CREDIT APPLICATION" MARTIN PROVIDED TO BMW AS IS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT FILED UNDER DOCKET NO. 18-CV-3304.2 (See 18-CV-3304 Compl. at ECF pp. 10-11, ¶¶ 12-14.) Alternatively, Plaintiffs may remit the $400.00 filing fee for each case.3
To qualify for in forma pauperis status, the Supreme Court has long held that "an affidavit is sufficient which states that one cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for the costs [inherent in litigation] and still be able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life." Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339, 69 S.Ct. 85, 93 S.Ct. 43 (1948) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiffs' applications do not include sufficient information for the Court to make such finding.
The applications submitted by Plaintiffs on June 13, 2018 are identical and incomplete. (See Docket Nos. 18-CV-3484 and 18-CV-3486.) And, because both Plaintiffs signed the same form, it impossible to discern to whom the responses pertain. In addition, the information set forth in the application filed by Brodsky on June 18, 2018 in 18-CV-3588 is inconsistent with the information contained in the June 13, 2018 applications as well as with the information contained in the applications Brodsky filed with the Court on his cases now consolidated under docket number 17-CV-6031. (See 17-CV-6031 at Docket Entry 2 as well as the applications to proceed in forma pauperis in each member case.) Disturbingly, although the Plaintiffs' address remains the same, the amount indicated for rent has inexplicably increased from $1,800 to $2,880.00 with no additional source of income or other assets listed. (See 18-CV-2006 at Docket Entry 2 and 18-CV-3304 at Docket Entry No. 2.) Curiously, each of the June 2018 applications report monthly rent of $2,000.00 for the same address. (See 18-CV-3484 and 18-CV-3486, at Docket Entry 2 in each case.)
Thus, the Court is unable to conclude, based on the present applications, that Plaintiffs are qualified to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, Plaintiffs applications are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO A RENEWAL THEREOF UPON COMPLETION OF THE AO 239 IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION FORM ANNEXED TO THIS ORDER TOGETHER WITH A COPY OF THE "OFFICIAL BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES CREDIT APPLICATION" MARTIN PROVIDED TO BMW AS IS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT FILED UNDER DOCKET NO. 18-CV-3304.4
Under the circumstances, Plaintiffs can best set forth their current, respective financial positions on the long form in forma pauperis application (AO 239). EACH PLAINTIFF IS DIRECTED TO RETURN A SEPARATE IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION IN EACH ABOVE-CAPTIONED CASE WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. MARTIN IS FURTHER DIRECTED TO ANNEX TO HER APPLICATIONS A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES CREDIT APPLICATION SHE PROVIDED TO BMW AS IS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT FILED UNDER DOCKET No. 18-CV-3304.
Alternatively, Plaintiffs may remit the $400.00 filing fee in each of these cases. Plaintiffs are cautioned that a failure to timely comply with this Order will lead to the dismissal of the Complaints with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(2)(A) and judgment will enter. Finally, given that Plaintiffs have declared "under penalty of perjury" that the information contained in their applications to proceed in forma pauperis is true, they would be wise to consult with counsel at this time.
The Court certifies pursuant to 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 any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45, 82 S.Ct. 917, 8 L. Ed. 2d 21 (1962).
The Clerk of the Court is further directed to mail a copy of this Memorandum and Order to the pro se Plaintiffs.
SO ORDERED.
