Shakur v. Carter

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DANIELLE AMARA SHAKUR, Plaintiff, 25-CV-4737 (LTS) -against- ORDER DIRECTING PAYMENT OF FEE OR AMENDED IFP APPLICATION SHAWN COREY CARTER, et al., Defendants.

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 her responses do not establish that she is unable to pay the filing fees. Plaintiff states that she does not have any sources of income or any money in a checking or savings account. She also states that she does not have costs associated with her housing, transportation, utilities, or other regular monthly expenses. It is therefore unclear from her answers how she is able to provide for herself financially. Because Plaintiff does not describe her financial circumstances, the Court is unable to conclude that she is unable to afford the filing fees.

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-4737 (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 IFP 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: August 1, 2025 New York, New York /s/ Laura Taylor Swain LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN Chief United States District Judge