UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------------------------------X LESLIE STANLEY, : : Plaintiff, : : ORDER -against- : 24-CV-4665 (AYS) : COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY : ADMINISTRATION, : : Defendant. : ---------------------------------------------------------------X ANNE Y. SHIELDS, Magistrate Judge: Before the Court is the renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis filed by counsel on behalf of plaintiff Leslie Stanley (“Plaintiff”) in this action against the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (“Defendant”) seeking review of the decision of the Administrative Law Judge pursuant to

(g). ECF Nos. 1, 6. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis is denied and Plaintiff shall pay the $405.00 filing fee within fourteen days. 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 IFP [in forma pauperis] is to insure 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. Aug. 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. Davis,

at *1 (citing DiGianni v. Pearson Educ., 10-CV-0206,

, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2010)). 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 did not answer most of the question on the renewed application and has written

0 in the spaces that request disclosure of the monthly amount spent on housing and utilities. See ECF No. 6, in toto and at ¶ 8. However, Plaintiff has included a residential address in her complaint and a telephone number in her renewed application. (ECF No. 1 at ¶ 1; ECF No. 6 at ¶ 12.) Although Plaintiff reports receiving public assistance (ECF No. 6 at ¶ 1), it also appears she is being supported by another given that she has included no expenses associated with her reported residence or utilities. Having been afforded an opportunity to do so, Plaintiff has not established that she is qualified to proceed in forma pauperis status. See Fridman v. City of N.Y.,

(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 omitted)). Accordingly, the renewed in forma pauperis application is denied. Plaintiff shall remit the $405.00 filing fee within fourteen (14) days from the date of this order. Absent timely payment, the Court will request reassignment to a district judge and will recommend to the district judge that this case be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Court certifies pursuant to

(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order

2 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: July 23, 2024, /s/ Anne Y. Shields Central Islip, New York Anne Y. Shields United States Magistrate Judge

3