Shawn K. Kane v. U.S. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------X SHAWN K. KANE, Plaintiff, ORDER -against- No. 25-CV-6680 (NCM) (JRC) U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL MERRICK B.

GARLAND, Attorney General of the United States, U.S. Department of Justice, Defendant. --------------------------------------------------------------X JAMES R. CHO, United States Magistrate Judge: Plaintiff Shawn K. Kane brings this pro se action, along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(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 February 27, 2026, 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, 2010 WL 3419671, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2010) (citing Gregory v. NYC Health & Hospitals Corp., No. 07-CV-1531, 2007 WL 1199010, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2007)); Cuoco v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 328 F. Supp. 2d 463, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(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,” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(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, 2021 WL 2894973, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. June 2, 2021); Humphrey v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, No. 21-CV-1901, 2021 WL 1837791, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. May 7, 2021). The question of whether a plaintiff qualifies for IFP status is within the discretion of the district court. Grimes v. Sil, No. 19-CV-1066, 2019 WL 981639, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2019). “If it appears that an applicant’s access to [ ] court has not been blocked by his financial condition; rather [that] he is merely in the position of having to weigh the financial constraints posed if he pursues [his position] against the merits of his case, then a court properly exercises its discretion to deny the application.” Brooks v. Aiden 0821 Capital LLC, No. 19-CV-6823, 2020 WL 4614323, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. July 22, 2020) (quoting Fridman v. City of New York, 195 F. Supp. 2d 534, 537 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)).

Here, Plaintiff earns $3,863.00 per month in salary, receives $3,968.00 each month in Veterans Disability benefits, has $465.00 in monthly expenses and has no debts or dependents. (ECF No. 2, ¶¶ 2, 6-8.) Notably, he has $137,000.00 in a Thrift Savings Plan and $16,000.00 in cash or in a checking or savings account. (Id. at ¶¶ 4-5.) Based on this information, the Court is not persuaded that he is unable to pay the filing fee to bring this action.

CONCLUSION Accordingly, Plaintiff’s IFP application is denied. In order to proceed with this action, Plaintiff is granted until February 27, 2026, to pay the $405.00 filing fee.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and note the mailing on the docket. All further proceedings shall be stayed.

The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(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, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).

SO ORDERED Dated: Brooklyn, New York February 12, 2026 s/ James R. Cho James R. Cho United States Magistrate Judge