Khan v. LT Hospitality Management, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MD MAMUN KHAN, Plaintiff, 25-CV-3990 (LTS) -against- ORDER DIRECTING PAYMENT OF FEE OR AMENDED IFP APPLICATION LT HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant.

LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff brings this action pro se. To proceed with a civil action in this Court, a plaintiff must either pay $405.00 in fees – a $350.00 filing fee plus a $55.00 administrative fee – or, to request authorization to proceed without prepayment of fees, submit a signed IFP application.

See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914, 1915.

Plaintiff submitted an IFP application, but he does not respond to the questions asking how he is paying for any of his expenses. In response to questions regarding his financial circumstances, he indicates that he does not have any source of income. In response to the question asking how he is paying his expenses, he does not answer the question. He also leaves blank the questions asking about his expenses. Because Plaintiff’s IFP application does provide a full accounting of his financial circumstances, including how he is able to eat and pay for his housing expenses, the Court is unable to determine whether he can pay the fees for this action.

Accordingly, within thirty days of the date of this order, Plaintiff must either pay the $405.00 in fees or submit an amended IFP application. If Plaintiff submits the amended IFP application, it should be labeled with docket number 25-CV-3990 (LTS) and address the deficiencies described above by providing facts to establish that she is unable to pay the filing fees. If the Court grants the amended IFP application, Plaintiff will be permitted to proceed without prepayment of fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

No summons shall issue at this time. If Plaintiff complies with this order, the case shall be processed in accordance with the procedures of the Clerk’s Office. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order within the time allowed, the action will be dismissed.

The Court certifies under 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 an appeal. Cf. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962) (holding that appellant demonstrates good faith when seeking review of a nonfrivolous issue).

SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 21, 2025 New York, New York /s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge