UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT (For Electronic Publication Only) EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------X CHRISTINE PARKER,

Plaintiff, ORDER -against- 23-CV-00158 (JMA)(LGD) FILED CAPITAL ONE, CLERK

11:44 am, Feb 09, 2023 Defendant. --------------------------------------------------------X U.S. DISTRICT COURT CHRISTINE PARKER, EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK LONG ISLAND OFFICE Plaintiff,

-against- 23-CV-00160 (JMA)(LGD)

EQUIFAX,

Defendant. --------------------------------------------------------X JOAN M. AZRACK, District Judge: Before the Court is an in forma pauperis application filed by pro se plaintiff Christine Parker (“plaintiff”) in each of the above cases. 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 Long Form in forma pauperis application (“Long Form”) in each case. Alternatively, plaintiff may remit the $402.00 filing fee in each case. Although plaintiff has provided responses to each question on the forms, her responses raise more questions than they answer and are largely incomplete. For example, plaintiff wrote “N/A” in the space that asks about employment and she checked “No” to indicate that she has not received income from any source in the past 12 months. (See Docket Entry No. 2, ¶¶ 2-3 in each case.) Although plaintiff includes a residential address in her complaints, she has not included any housing expenses such as rent or a mortgage payment in the space that asks for a description of any regular monthly expenses and their amounts. (See id. at ¶ 6; Complaints, ECF No. 1 at ¶ 1.) Nor has plaintiff included any regular monthly expenses for items such as food and transportation. (See ECF No. 2 at ¶ 6.) Though plaintiff reports having $200 in cash or in an account (id. ¶ 4), she does not report owning any items of value and lists a student loan as her only debt or financial obligation. Further, the Court cannot ignore that although plaintiff

recently settled another case in this Court, Parker v. VW Credit, Inc., 22-CV-4837(JMA)(SIL); plaintiff did not disclose income from a settlement in her present applications. Given the fact that plaintiff’s responses raise more questions than they answer, plaintiff’s applications are denied without prejudice and with leave to renew upon completion of the long form applications enclosed with this Order within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order. Alternatively, plaintiff may remit the $402.00 filing fee in each case. Plaintiff is warned that, once paid, there are no refunds of the filing fee, regardless of the outcome of the case.1 Further, plaintiff is cautioned that her failure to timely comply with this Order may lead to the dismissal of the complaints 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).

1 Plaintiff may consult with the Hofstra Law Pro Se Clinic located in the Central Islip Courthouse, which can provide free information, advice, and limited scope legal assistance to non-incarcerated pro se litigants. The Pro Se Clinic is not part of, nor affiliated with, the United States District Court. Consultations with the Pro Se Clinic can be conducted remotely via telephone and may be scheduled by sending an email to [email protected] or by leaving a message at (631) 297-2575.

2 The Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this Order to the plaintiff at her address of record. SO ORDERED. ______/s/ (JMA)_______________ Dated: February 9, 2023 Joan M. Azrack Central Islip, New York United States District Judge

3