District Court, S.D. New York, 2023

Liga v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Liga v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
District Court, S.D. New York · Decided December 13, 2023
Liga v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------------X MARIANELLA L. LIGA, Plaintiff, 23 Civ. No. 9289 (GS) -against- ORDER COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. -----------------------------------------------------------------X GARY STEIN, United States Magistrate Judge: On October 20, 2023, Plaintiff Marianella L. Liga, through her counsel, filed a complaint challenging the denial of her claim for social security benefits, along with a request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Dkt. Nos. 1, 3). Judge Rearden denied Plaintiff’s application for IFP status on October 30, 2023 and directed Plaintiff to pay the $402.00 filing fee within thirty days of the order, i.e., by November 29, 2023. (Dkt. No. 8). Judge Rearden further certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the October 30, 2023 order would not be taken in good faith, and thus found that Plaintiff’s IFP status was denied for purposes of appeal. (Id.). Also on October 30, 2023, the parties consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned. (Dkt. No. 9).

As of the date of the present order, Plaintiff has not paid the requisite filing fee, nor did she seek an extension of the November 29, 2023 deadline set by Judge Rearden. Plaintiff is hereby directed to render payment of the filing fee by January 12, 2024. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order within the time allowed, this action may be dismissed for want of prosecution. See, e.g., In re Scott, No. 21 Civ. 7168 (NSR), 2021 WL 4124726, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2021) (dismissing case for failure to prosecute where complainant’s IFP application was denied, complainant clearly had notice of the consequences of his failure to pay the fee, and nevertheless the fee was not paid); Waters v. Camacho, 288 F.R.D. 70, 71 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (dismissing case for failure to prosecute where plaintiff had notice that failure to pay the filing fee could result in dismissal).

SO ORDERED.

DATED: New York, New York December 13, 2023 9 Mea GARY STEIN United States Magistrate Judge

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.