Crudden v. New York State Insurance Fund

District Court, E.D. New York

Crudden v. New York State Insurance Fund

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK For Online Publication Only CLERK --------------------------------------------------------X 3/14/202 3 1:29 pm CAITLIN CRUDDEN, U.S. DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ORDER LONG ISLAND OFFICE -against- 23-CV-0509 (JMA)(ST)

NEW YORK STATE INSURANCE FUND,

Defendants. --------------------------------------------------------X JOAN M. AZRACK, District Judge: Before the Court is the in forma pauperis application filed by pro se plaintiff Caitlin Crudden (“plaintiff”) together with her complaint against the New York State Insurance Fund (“defendant”). 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. Although plaintiff has provided responses to each question on the form, she has not included the financial information requested. For example, in the space that asks for a description of any items owned and the approximate value of such items, plaintiff wrote: “I own a car and I own a 1 bedroom co-op.” (Docket Entry 2, ¶ 5.) Indeed, plaintiff has not provided any financial information in response most of the questions on the form, including her regular monthly expenses and the amounts of her reported debts or financial obligations. (Id. ¶¶ 6-8.) Further, although plaintiff reports receiving take-home pay or wages in the sum of “approx. $2800-3000” she does not include whether this is paid weekly, bi-weekly, or some other pay period. (Id. ¶ 2.) Given the absence of the required information, together with the fact that plaintiff reports having “approx. - $5,000 or less” in cash or in an account (id. ¶ 4), the Court finds her responses raise more questions than they answer. Accordingly, plaintiff’s 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. Alternatively, plaintiff may remit the $402.00 filing fee. Further, plaintiff is cautioned her 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

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

(1962). The Clerk of Court shall mail a copy of this Order to the plaintiff at her address of record. SO ORDERED. _____/s/ (JMA)_______________ Dated: March 14, 2023 Joan M. Azrack Central Islip, New York United States District Judge

2

Reference

Status
Unknown