David-Barlow v. N.Y. N.J Marriage Lic. Agency's

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MRS. SARAH M. DAVID-BARLOW; MR. CLINTON C. BARLOW, Plaintiffs, 20-CV-3136 (CM) -against- ORDER N.Y. N.J. MARRIAGE LIC. AGENCY’S, et al, Defendants.

COLLEEN McMAHON, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiffs Clinton C. Barlow and Sarah M. David-Barlow filed this action pro se alleging that the temporary closure of the New York City Marriage Bureau during the COVID-19 pandemic violated their constitutional rights. Although Sarah M. David-Barlow is listed as a plaintiff in the caption of the complaint, she did not sign the complaint or submit an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). By order dated May 4, 2020, the Court directed Sarah M. Barlow to submit an IFP application and submit a declaration form establishing her intention to proceed as a plaintiff in this case. Clinton C. Barlow and Sarah M. David-Barlow have not communicated with the Court since this complaint was filed.

Sarah M. Barlow is dismissed as a plaintiff. Plaintiff Clinton C. Barlow is directed to notify the Court within thirty days of the date of this order if he wishes to proceed with this action. If Plaintiff fails to comply within the time allowed, and he cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, the matter will be dismissed without prejudice.

In light of the current global health crisis, parties proceeding pro se are encouraged to submit all filings by email to [email protected]. Pro se parties who are unable to use email may submit documents by regular mail or in person at the drop box located at the U.S. Courthouses in Manhattan (500 Pearl Street) and White Plains (300 Quarropas Street). For more information, including instructions on this new email service for pro se parties, please visit the Court’s website at nysd.uscourts. gov.

Clinton C. Barlow has consented to receive electronic service. (ECF 3.)

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 an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue).

SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 3, 2020 , New York, New York hie. I Wik Chief United States District Judge