Bey v. Carillo
- Kimba Wood
- 1:25-cv-02099
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Bey v. Carillo, Judge Swain ordered payment or an amended fee-waiver application after finding the financial information insufficient.
Jeremy Jacob Morales Bey must either pay the $405 filing and administrative fees or submit a complete amended fee-waiver application within 30 days. The case will not proceed to summons issuance unless he complies.
What happened
Jeremy Jacob Morales Bey sued Police Officer Carillo and other defendants without a lawyer in Bey v. Carillo. He asked to proceed without paying the court’s fees, but his application did not provide enough information for the court to decide whether he could afford them.
Bey reported that he was unemployed and had no income, assets, expenses, dependents, or debts. He did not answer questions about his last employment and wages, and his explanation of how he paid his living expenses did not provide usable financial information.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered Bey, within 30 days, either to pay $405 or submit an amended fee-waiver application answering the applicable questions and explaining how he meets his basic living expenses. No summons will issue for now, and the court said the action will be dismissed if he does not comply; it also denied fee-waiver status for an appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Bey v. Carillo · No. 1:25-cv-02099
- Kimba Wood
- Mar. 21, 2025
Background
Jeremy Jacob Morales Bey filed this action without a lawyer against Police Officer Carillo, Lieutenant Bautista, NYPD Precinct #020, and the Department of Motor Vehicles Traffic Violations Division. He submitted an application to proceed without prepaying fees, commonly called an IFP application, which asks the court to allow a person to proceed without paying filing fees in advance.
The court stated that filing a civil action requires payment of $405: a $350 filing fee and a $55 administrative fee, unless the court authorizes proceeding without prepayment. Bey stated that he was unemployed and reported no other income, cash, checking or savings account funds, personal property, housing, transportation, or monthly expenses. He also reported no dependents, debts, or other financial obligations. However, he did not answer the application’s questions about his last employment date or his gross monthly wages at that time. When asked how he paid his living expenses, he gave a statement referring to legal provisions rather than facts about his finances.
Order
The court concluded that Bey’s application did not provide enough information to determine whether he was unable to pay the filing fees. Within 30 days of the order, Bey must either pay the $405 in fees or submit an amended IFP application labeled with case number 25-CV-2099 (LTS). The amended application must answer all applicable questions and provide facts explaining how he meets his basic living expenses.
The court did not authorize fee-free litigation at this stage. It stated that, if it grants the amended application, Bey may proceed without prepaying fees. No summons will issue at this time. If Bey does not comply within the allowed period, the action will be dismissed. The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal.
Classification Basis
This is a procedural order concerning an application to proceed without prepaying fees. It does not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.