Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 12, 2019

Love v. Mt. Sinai West Hospital

Judge
Andrew Carter
Docket
1:19-cv-10522
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Pro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Love v. Mt. Sinai West Hospital, Judge McMahon ordered a pro se plaintiff to pay fees or amend his incomplete fee-waiver application within 30 days.

Who this affects

Vincent E. Love, who must either pay the required fees or submit a complete amended fee-waiver application within 30 days to avoid dismissal of the action.

What happened

Vincent E. Love brought Love v. Mt. Sinai West Hospital and asked to proceed without paying the filing fees. He represented himself. His application did not fully disclose his financial information, including income, bank funds, assets, expenses, dependents, and other obligations.

The court ordered Love, within 30 days, either to pay $400 in filing and administrative fees or submit a complete amended application. The court did not grant his request to proceed without paying fees at that time. It also ordered that no summons issue yet and stated that the action would be dismissed if Love did not comply.

Chief Judge Colleen McMahon issued the order. She also denied Love permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Love v. Mt. Sinai West Hospital · No. 1:19-cv-10522
Judge
Andrew Carter
Date
Dec. 12, 2019

Background

Vincent E. Love filed this civil action against Mt. Sinai West Hospital and other defendants. He proceeded without a lawyer and asked to proceed without prepaying court fees, a status commonly called proceeding without paying fees based on inability to pay.

Love submitted an application for that status, but the court found it incomplete. The application appeared to state that he was unemployed and had earned $2,000 per month as of October 8, 2019, his last date of employment. He indicated that he received income from a pension, annuity, or life-insurance payments, but did not identify the source or amount. He also left unanswered questions about his bank-account balance, property and other assets, monthly expenses, people he financially supported, and other financial obligations.

Order

The court held that it could not grant Love permission to proceed without prepaying fees because he had not fully answered the application’s questions about his financial status. The court ordered him, within 30 days of the order, either to pay the required $400—identified as a $350 filing fee and a $50 administrative fee—or submit the attached amended application with complete answers. The court stated that Love could be required to pay the fees if it determined that he had the funds to do so.

The court directed the Clerk of Court to assign the matter to the judge’s docket, mail the order to Love, and record service on the docket. No summons was to issue at that time. If Love complied, the action would be processed under the Clerk’s Office procedures; if he failed to comply within the allowed time, the court stated that it would dismiss the action.

Appeal and Disposition

Chief Judge Colleen McMahon certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith. She therefore denied permission to proceed without prepaying fees for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.