Alexander v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-10811
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Alexander v. J.P. Morgan, Judge McMahon gave Alexander 30 days to pay $400 or submit a complete fee-waiver application, and denied fee-waiver status for appeal.
Jeriel Alexander, who must either pay the $400 filing fee or submit a complete second amended fee-waiver application within 30 days; the action would be dismissed without prejudice if he failed to comply.
What happened
In Alexander v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank N.A., Jeriel Alexander, who was representing himself, asked to proceed without paying the court’s filing fees. The court had asked him to explain how he paid his living expenses because his applications said he had no income, resources, expenses, or debts, but his amended application did not provide that explanation.
The court gave Alexander one final opportunity to show that he could not afford the fees. Within 30 days, he had to either pay $400 or submit another fee-waiver application answering every question, listing all income and monthly expenses, and explaining how he supported himself. The court stated that failing to comply would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice.
Judge Colleen McMahon did not decide whether Alexander could proceed without paying the filing fee. She directed the clerk to mail the order and denied fee-waiver status for any appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Alexander v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. · No. 1:19-cv-10811
- Colleen McMahon
- Dec. 26, 2019
Background
Jeriel Alexander filed this action without a lawyer and asked to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. This status is commonly called proceeding without paying fees because of inability to afford them. The court previously directed Alexander to submit an amended application because his original application said he was unemployed and had no resources, expenses, or debts, but did not explain how he paid his living expenses.
Alexander’s amended application was virtually identical to the original. He stated that he had earned $600 per month when he last worked in December 2018, but answered the remaining questions with either “No” or “0.”
Court’s analysis
The court explained that the fee-waiver statute allows a person to proceed without prepaying filing fees after showing an inability to pay. It also requires dismissal when the allegation of poverty is untrue. The court said dismissal for this reason is a harsh sanction and should be used only in extreme cases, including situations where a person intentionally hides income to obtain fee-waiver status.
The court found that Alexander’s two applications failed to explain how he supported himself, making it impossible to determine whether he was unable to pay. The court said it was unclear whether Alexander did not understand the need to provide complete financial information or was concealing income.
Order and disposition
Because Alexander was representing himself, the court gave him one final opportunity. Within 30 days of the order, he had to either pay the $400 in fees or submit a second amended fee-waiver application. That application had to answer every question, identify all sources of income and monthly expenses, and describe how he supported himself. If Alexander failed to comply, the action would be dismissed without prejudice. If the court granted the second amended application, he would be allowed to proceed without prepaying the fees.
Judge Colleen McMahon directed the clerk to mail Alexander a copy of the order and record service on the docket. The court also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide the underlying claims against J.P. Morgan Chase Bank N.A.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.