UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------x JASMINE L. FRANCIS,

Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM & ORDER 25-CV-02301 (NRM) (MMH) -against-

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant. -----------------------------------------------------x NINA R. MORRISON, United States District Judge.

Plaintiff Jasmine Francis filed this pro se employment discrimination action on October 6, 2025. Along with the complaint, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiff’s request to proceed IFP is denied, and she is granted fourteen (14) days from the date of entry of this Order to pay the $405.00 filing fee. DISCUSSION A plaintiff seeking to proceed IFP must submit an affidavit stating “that the person is unable to pay” filing fees “or give security therefor” and must also include “a statement of all assets” the person possesses.

(a)(1). “A litigant need not be ‘absolutely destitute’ to qualify for in forma pauperis status but need demonstrate only that they ‘cannot because of their poverty pay or give security for the costs and still be able to provide themselves and dependents with the necessities of life.’” Rosa v. Doe,

(2d Cir. 2023) (quoting Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,

(1948)); Gil v. JP Morgan Chase Bank NA, No. 23-CV-02268,

, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2023). 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., Levy v. Exodus Movement Inc., No. 25-CV- 2975,

, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. June 10, 2025); Harriott v. U.S. Postal Servs., No. 24-CV-7332,

, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2025); Lawrence v.

Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 22-CV-2332,

, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. May 31, 2022). The question of whether a plaintiff qualifies for IFP status is within the discretion of the district court. Grant v. 115th Precinct, No. 24-CV-4183,

, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. July 1, 2024). The financial declaration form that Plaintiff has submitted does not satisfy the Court that she is unable to pay the Court’s filing fee to commence this action. Plaintiff notes that she is employed and earns gross wages of $4,216.42, with a bi-weekly take-

home pay of $2,594.44. (ECF No 2 at 1.) She further indicates that she has $3,000.00 in cash or in a checking or savings account. (Id. at 2.) Although she has monthly expenses, her declaration establishes that she has sufficient resources to pay the $405.00 filing fee to commence this action. CONCLUSION Accordingly, it is hereby: ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request to proceed IFP is denied. If she intends to proceed with this action within fourteen days from the date of this Order, she is to pay the filing fee of $405.00 to the Clerk of Court. If she fails to pay the required filing

fee in a timely manner, the action will be dismissed without prejudice and without further notice. ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this Order to the Plaintiff and, ORDERED that pursuant to

(a)(3), the Court certifies that any appeal from this Order would not be in good faith and, therefore, IFP status is

denied for the purpose of any appeal. See Coppedge v. United States,

, 444–45 (1962). SO ORDERED.

/s/ Nina R. Morrison NINA R. MORRISON United States District Judge

Dated: November 5, 2025 Brooklyn, New York