Alexander v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-10811
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Alexander v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, Judge McMahon gave Alexander one final chance to prove he cannot pay the $400 filing fee.
Jeriel Alexander was required to pay the $400 fee or provide a complete second fee-waiver application within 30 days; the case could be dismissed without prejudice if he did not comply. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank N.A. was the defendant.
What happened
In Alexander v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., Jeriel Alexander asked to proceed without paying court fees because he said he could not afford them. The court had already asked him to explain how he paid his living expenses, but his amended application remained virtually identical to the first one.
The court said it could not determine whether Alexander was unable to pay because he did not explain how he supported himself. It gave him 30 days to either pay the $400 fee or submit a second amended application listing all income, expenses, and other financial information. The court did not grant his request to proceed without prepaying fees at this stage.
Judge Colleen McMahon ordered the Clerk to mail Alexander the order and application. She stated that failing to comply would result in dismissal without prejudice, and denied fee-free status for any appeal from the order.
The detailed version
- Alexander v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. · No. 1:19-cv-10811
- Colleen McMahon
- Dec. 6, 2019
Background
Jeriel Alexander brought this action without a lawyer and asked to proceed without prepaying court fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, commonly called proceeding without prepayment of fees. The court had previously directed him to file an amended application because he reported that he was unemployed and had no resources, expenses, or debts but did not explain how he paid his living expenses.
Alexander's amended application stated that he had earned $600 per month when he last worked in “12/18.” The opinion says he answered the remaining questions with either “No” or “0,” and that the amended application was virtually identical to the original one.
Court's analysis
The court explained that a person may proceed without prepaying filing fees after showing an inability to pay. Under § 1915(e)(2)(A), however, the court must dismiss a case if the allegation of poverty is untrue. The court also noted that dismissal with prejudice under this provision is a harsh sanction generally reserved for extreme cases, including intentional concealment of income.
The court found that Alexander's two applications failed to explain how he supported himself. As a result, it could not determine whether he was unable to pay the filing fees. The court said it was unclear whether Alexander did not understand the need to provide complete financial information or was concealing income.
Ruling and required action
The court gave Alexander one final opportunity because he was proceeding without a lawyer. Within 30 days of the order, he had to either pay $400 in fees or submit a second amended application. The new application had to answer every question, identify all sources of income and monthly expenses, and explain how he supported himself. If he submitted the application and the court granted it, he would be allowed to proceed without prepaying fees. If he failed to comply, the action would be dismissed without prejudice.
The order did not grant Alexander's request to proceed without prepaying fees at that time. It directed the Clerk of Court to mail him the order and note service on the docket. The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.