UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Fo3r/ O23n/l2in0e2 P1u 1b0 li:c5a0ti oanm Only EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK U.S. DISTRICT COURT --------------------------------------------------------------X EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELIZABETH MARIE BASTA, L O N G ISLAND OFFICE

Plaintiff, ORDER -against- 21-CV-0896 (JMA)

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant. -------------------------------------------------------------X AZRACK, United States District Judge: Before the Court is the in forma pauperis application filed by counsel on behalf of plaintiff, - ---------- Elizabeth Marie Basta (“Plaintiff”). For the reasons that follow, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is denied without prejudice and with leave to renew upon completion of the AO 239 Long Form in forma pauperis application (“Long Form”) attached to this Order. Alternatively, Plaintiff may remit the $402.00 filing fee. 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.,

(1948) (internal quotation marks omitted). The purpose of the statute permitting litigants to proceed in forma pauperis is to - ---------- ensure that indigent persons have equal access to the judicial system. Davis v. NYC Dept. of Educ., 10-CV-3812,

, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. August 27, 2010) (citing Gregory v. NYC Health & Hospitals Corp., 07-CV-1531,

, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2007)). The determination of whether an applicant qualifies for in forma pauperis status is within the discretion - ---------- of the district court. DiGianni v. Pearson Educ., 10-CV-0206,

, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2010) (citing Choi v. Chemical Bank,

(S.D.N.Y. 1996)). The court may dismiss a case brought by a plaintiff requesting to proceed in forma pauperis if the - ---------- “allegation of poverty is untrue.”

(e)(2)(A). Plaintiff’s application is incomplete and raises more questions than it answers. (See Docket Entry 4.) Although Plaintiff reports that she is unemployed, owns nothing of value, and has less than a dollar in cash or in a checking or savings account, she reports that she lives with, and appears to be supported by, her parents. (Id. ¶¶ 2, 4-6.) Plaintiff declined to provide any financial information concerning her regular monthly expenses for items such as transportation, food, utilities, and insurance. (Id. ¶ 6.) Indeed, although Plaintiff reports that she leases a car, she has provided no information concerning that expense. (Id. ¶ 5.) Given the responses provided by plaintiff, the Court’s finds that she does not qualify for in forma pauperis status. See Wrenn v. Benson,

, 90 n.4 (1989) (per curiam) (denying leave to proceed -in -fo-rm--a -pa-u-p-e-ri-s based on review of information contained in the supporting affidavit of indigency); -se-e -al-so- -Fr-id-m-a-n- v-.- C-it-y- o-f -N-e-w- Y-o-r-k,

(S.D.N.Y. 2002) (“In assessing an application to proceed in forma pauperis, a court may consider the resources that the applicant has or can get from those who ordinarily provide the applicant with

the necessities of life, such as from a spouse, parent, adult sibling or other next friend.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In addition, “‘[i]f it appears that an applicant’s ‘access to [ ] court has not been blocked by his financial condition; rather [that] he is ‘merely in the position of having to weigh the financial constraints posed if he pursues [his position] against the merits of his case,’’ then a court properly exercises its discretion to deny the application.” Brooks v. Aiden 0821 Capital LLC, No. 19-CV-6823,

, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. July 22, 2020) (quoting Fridman,

). In an abundance of caution and given that the incomplete responses provided by Plaintiff, 2 her application is denied without prejudice and with leave to renew upon completion of the Long Form application enclosed with this Order within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order. Plaintiff shall substitute the financial information for her parents in place of “spouse” where it calls for such information on the Long Form. Alternatively, Plaintiff may remit the $402.00 filing fee. Plaintiff is warned that a failure to timely comply with this Order may lead to the dismissal of the

complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The Court certifies pursuant to

(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,

(1962). SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2021 Central Islip, New York /s/ (JMA) JOAN M. AZRACK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3