Alexander v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Background

The plaintiff, proceeding without a lawyer, appealed from earlier rulings in this case and moved for permission to proceed without paying the appeal fees. The court had previously dismissed the federal claims in his amended complaint with prejudice and dismissed the state-law claims without prejudice to filing them in state court. It also denied his motion to amend the complaint after finding that further amendment would be futile. The court later denied his motion to reconsider those rulings.

The plaintiff had previously sought permission to proceed without paying court fees. The court had directed him to provide more information because his earlier application stated that he was unemployed and had no resources, expenses, or debts but did not explain how he paid his living expenses. After he repeatedly failed to correct the application, the court dismissed his complaint without prejudice for failure to follow its orders and directed him to pay the filing fee. He paid that fee on February 18, 2020.

The Appeal-Fee Application

The pending motion sought permission to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the required filing fees. The plaintiff’s new application listed no income during the previous 12 months, no employment history during the previous two years, no assets, and no average monthly expenses. It listed zero for all expense categories, including food, transportation, and medical and dental expenses. He also stated that he expected no major changes in his income, expenses, assets, or liabilities during the next 12 months. In explaining why he could not pay, he wrote that he was a full-time student, that production and film work was slow, and that he was self-employed.

Ruling

Judge Wang denied the application without prejudice for substantially the same reasons given in the earlier ruling. The court concluded that the plaintiff had again failed to explain how he paid his living expenses, which could not reasonably be zero, and therefore could not determine that he lacked sufficient funds to pay the appeal fees.

Because the plaintiff was representing himself, the court gave him one final opportunity to submit a corrected application. It allowed him to reapply by Wednesday, July 3, 2024. The new application must answer every question, identify all sources of income and monthly expenses, and explain how he supports himself. The court stated that failing to reapply by that date would be treated as no longer seeking permission to proceed without paying fees on appeal.

The court separately certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal from this order. The clerk was directed to close the pending motion and serve the order on the plaintiff.