Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 3, 2020

Obotette v. National Football League

Judge
Colleen McMahon
Docket
1:20-cv-00876
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Pro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Obotette v. National Football League, Judge McMahon ordered the pro se plaintiff to pay fees or amend his application to proceed without prepayment.

Who this affects

The pro se plaintiff, who must either pay the $400 in fees or submit an amended application within 30 days; the action may be dismissed if he does not comply. The defendant is affected because no summons issued and the case was not yet processed.

What happened

In Ubong Bassey Obotette (Obong) v. National Football League, the plaintiff asked to proceed without paying the filing fees. He filed an application stating that he was unemployed and had no income, money, assets, expenses, or debts, but he did not explain how he paid his living expenses.

The court ordered the plaintiff, within 30 days, either to pay $400 in fees or submit an amended application explaining how he supports himself and why he cannot pay. The court directed that no summons issue yet and stated that it would dismiss the action if he did not comply.

Judge Colleen McMahon also denied payment-free status for any appeal from this order, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. The order did not decide the underlying claims.

The detailed version

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

Case
Obotette v. National Football League · No. 1:20-cv-00876
Judge
Colleen McMahon
Date
Feb. 3, 2020

Background

Plaintiff Ubong Bassey Obotette (Obong) brought the action without a lawyer. To proceed with a civil action, he had to pay $400 in filing and administrative fees or request authorization to proceed without prepaying those fees by submitting a signed application for payment-free status, called an IFP application.

The plaintiff submitted an IFP application stating that he was unemployed and had received no income from any source during the previous 12 months. He also stated that he had no money in checking or savings accounts, no assets, no monthly expenses, and no debts or financial obligations. He did not answer the application’s question asking how he paid his expenses.

Order

The court concluded that the application did not establish that the plaintiff was unable to pay the filing fees because it did not explain how he supported himself. The court therefore ordered him, within 30 days of the order, either to pay the $400 in fees or submit an amended IFP application addressing that deficiency and providing facts establishing that he could not pay.

If the court granted the amended IFP application, the plaintiff would be allowed to proceed without prepaying the fees. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to the plaintiff and note service on the docket. No summons was to issue at that time. The court stated that it would process the case if the plaintiff complied and would dismiss the action if he did not comply within the allowed time.

Appeal and Effect

Judge Colleen McMahon certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied payment-free status for purposes of an appeal. This order addressed filing fees and the plaintiff’s application to proceed without prepayment; it did not reach the merits of the underlying action.

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.