Roberts v. PLS Check Cashers
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-04032
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Roberts v. PLS Check Cashers, Chief Judge Swain ordered payment or an amended fee-waiver application within 30 days; no summons issues yet.
Jazmine I. Roberts, who must either pay the $405 in fees or submit a complete and truthful amended application to proceed without prepaying fees within 30 days.
What happened
Roberts v. PLS Check Cashers concerns Jazmine I. Roberts’s attempt to bring a civil case without a lawyer. She said she was unemployed and received disability or workers’ compensation benefits and other public benefits, but her application did not provide enough financial information.
The court ordered Roberts, within 30 days, either to pay $405 in fees or submit a fully completed and signed application to proceed without paying the fees upfront. The court said no summons would issue yet and warned that the case would be dismissed if she did not comply. The court did not decide whether to approve her fee-waiver request.
Chief Judge Swain also denied fee-waiver status for any appeal from this order, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Roberts v. PLS Check Cashers · No. 1:24-cv-04032
- Laura Swain
- June 7, 2024
Background
Jazmine I. Roberts brought this civil action without a lawyer. To proceed without paying court fees upfront, she submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), meaning that she asked to proceed without prepaying the filing and administrative fees.
Roberts stated that she was unemployed and received disability or workers’ compensation benefits and other public benefits. She did not identify the nature or amount of those other public benefits. She also did not state whether she had money in a bank account, other assets and their values, monthly expenses, debts or other financial obligations, or anyone financially dependent on her.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a civil action generally requires payment of $405: a $350 filing fee and a $55 administrative fee. A person may instead request IFP status by submitting a completed and signed application. The court must dismiss an action if an applicant’s allegation of poverty is untrue, but dismissal is not required for every good-faith inaccuracy or minor misstatement. Concealing or misrepresenting financial assets or history in bad faith can justify dismissal.
Because Roberts’s application omitted information needed to evaluate her financial situation, the court could not decide at that time whether to grant IFP status.
Order
The court ordered Roberts, within 30 days of the order, either to pay the $405 in fees or fully complete, sign, and submit an amended IFP application. The amended application must provide specific facts showing that she cannot pay the fees and must truthfully answer all questions. If the court grants the amended application, Roberts may proceed without prepaying the fees.
No summons shall issue at this time. The court stated that the action would be processed through the Clerk’s Office if Roberts complied with the order, and that the court would dismiss the action if she failed to comply within the allowed time. The order itself did not grant or deny Roberts’s IFP application.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. Laura Taylor Swain signed the order as Chief United States District Judge.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.