Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 27, 2019

Armstrong v. B&H Photo

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:19-cv-11676
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Armstrong v. B&H Photo, Judge McMahon ordered a pro se plaintiff to pay filing fees or submit an amended application to proceed without prepayment.

Who this affects

Richard Armstrong, who must either pay the filing fees or submit an amended application within 30 days to avoid dismissal of the action.

What happened

In Armstrong v. B&H Photo, Richard Armstrong brought the action without a lawyer and submitted an application asking to proceed without paying filing fees.

The court found that his application did not show he was unable to pay because it reported a $2,000 monthly gross salary, other income within the past year, and unanswered questions about possible rental income and disability or workers’ compensation benefits.

Judge Colleen McMahon ordered Armstrong, within 30 days, to pay $400 or submit an amended application addressing those deficiencies. No summons would issue at that time, and the court said the action would be dismissed if he did not comply; it also denied fee-free status for any appeal.

The detailed version

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

Case
Armstrong v. B&H Photo · No. 1:19-cv-11676
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Dec. 27, 2019

Background

Richard Armstrong brought the action pro se, meaning without a lawyer. The opinion identifies B&H Photo and other defendants but does not describe the claims. To begin a civil action in the court, Armstrong had to either pay $400 in filing and administrative fees or submit a signed application to proceed without prepaying those fees, commonly called an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).

Application Deficiencies

Armstrong submitted an IFP application. The court found that his responses did not establish that he was unable to pay. The application reported a gross salary of $2,000 per month and income during the preceding year from a pension, annuity, life insurance, gift, inheritance, or another source. It also did not answer questions about rental income or disability or workers’ compensation benefits.

Order

The court ordered Armstrong to do one of two things within 30 days of the order: pay the $400 in fees or submit an amended IFP application. The amended application had to use docket number 19-CV-11676 (CM) and provide facts establishing that he could not pay the fees. If the court granted the amended application, Armstrong would be allowed to proceed without prepaying the fees.

Judge Colleen McMahon directed the Clerk of Court to assign the matter to her docket, mail the order to Armstrong, and record service on the docket. The court directed that no summons issue at that time and stated that the action would be dismissed if Armstrong did not comply within the allowed period. The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal. The order did not address the merits of Armstrong’s claims.

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.