UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------- X KATHY EWA, : Plaintiff, : : ORDER – against – : 25-CV-3405 (AMD) (PK) : MR. RON VACHRIS, CEO of COSTCO; MIKE HESSLING, CEO of Gallagher Bassett; : LESLIE COHETERO, Segal & Lax, : : Defendant. -------------------------------------------------------------- X ANN M. DONNELLY, United States District Judge: On August 6, 2025, the Court dismissed the pr o se plaintiff’s amended complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). (ECF No. 7.) The Court also certified pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the Order w ould not be taken in good faith and thus denied in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status for the purpos e of an appeal. (Id. at 4 (citing Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962)).) On September 4, 2025, the plaintiff filed a motion for IFP on appeal. (ECF No. 11.) A court may deny IFP for an appeal if it finds that the appeal is not taken in good faith, and the Court articulates such findings in writing. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) (“An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.”). As the Court stated in its August 6, 2025 Order, an appeal from the Order would not be taken in good faith. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is denied without prejudice as to her right to seek the same relief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. See Coppedge, 369 U.S. at 445 (“If the District Court finds the application is not in good faith, and therefore denies leave to appeal in forma pauperis, the defendant may seek identical relief from the Court of Appeals.”). SO ORDERED. _ _ _ _ s__/A__n_n__ M__._ _D__o_n_n__e_l_ly______ ANN M. DONNELLY United States District Judge Dated: Brooklyn, New York October 20, 2025