UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------------X ALBERT HARRIOTT,

Plaintiff, ORDER -against- 24-CV-7332 (LDH) (RML)

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICES; NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES; JUDGE NINA R. MORRISON,

Defendants. -------------------------------------------------------------------X

LaSHANN DeARCY HALL, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Albert Harriott brings this pro se action, along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to

(a). (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) is denied. In order to proceed with this action, Plaintiff is granted until January 23, 2024, to either file a Long Form IFP application or to pay the $405.00 filing fee. “The purpose of the statute permitting litigants to proceed IFP is to ensure that indigent persons have equal access to the judicial system.” Davis v. NYC Dept. of Educ., No. 10-CV-3812,

, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2010) (citing Gregory v. NYC Health & Hospitals Corp., No. 07-CV-1531,

, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2007)). A plaintiff seeking to proceed IFP must submit an affidavit stating “that [he or she] is unable to pay” filing fees “or give security therefor.”

(a)(1). Section 1915 authorizes a court to dismiss a case brought by a plaintiff requesting to proceed IFP if the “allegation of poverty is untrue,”

(e)(2)(A) and courts in this district often treat that dismissal provision as applicable when a litigant’s statement of assets fails to establish the level of poverty required under the IFP statute. See, e.g., Miller v. Smith, No. 21-CV-2949,

, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. June 2, 2021); Humphrey v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, No. 21-CV-1901,

, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. May 7, 2021). The Court finds Plaintiff’s IFP application does not satisfy the Court that he is unable to pay the filing fee to commence this action. (See generally ECF No. 2.) Plaintiff merely writes

“N/A” or “0” in every section and provides no information concerning whether he earns income from employment or other sources, whether he has money in a checking or savings account, whether he has regular monthly expenses, financial obligations, debts, financial dependents, or any assets. (Id. ¶¶ 2-8.) “When an applicant fails to explain how he supports himself, courts generally regard his application as incomplete and insufficient to establish an entitlement to in forma pauperis status.” Dan M. v. Kijakazi, No. 22-CV-664,

, at *2 (D. Conn. May 19, 2022). CONCLUSION Accordingly, Plaintiff’s IFP application is denied. To proceed with this action, Plaintiff is granted until January 23, 2024, to either file a Long Form IFP application or to pay the $405.00 filing fee. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a Long Form IFP application to Plaintiff, along with a copy of this Order, and note the mailing on the docket. All further proceedings shall be stayed.

2 The Court certifies pursuant to

(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. Coppedge v. United States,

(1962).

SO ORDERED.

/s/ LDH LaSHANN DeARCY HALL United States District Judge Dated: January 2, 2025 Brooklyn, New York

3