Levy v. Baruch College
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-07106
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Levy v. Baruch College, Judge McMahon dismissed the action without prejudice because Levy neither paid fees nor filed the required financial application.
Fred Levy’s action against Baruch College and the NYC Department of Finance was dismissed without prejudice because he did not pay the filing fee or submit the required second amended application.
What happened
In Levy v. Baruch College, Fred Levy was ordered to either pay the $400 filing fee or submit a complete application showing he could not afford it. The court found his first amended application deficient and later gave him another opportunity to submit one.
Levy challenged the court’s authority to require more financial information and said doing so violated his constitutional rights. He also requested more time, said he needed an attorney, and mentioned plans to add employers and pursue related employment charges.
The court denied another extension and dismissed the action without prejudice because Levy had not filed the required second amended financial application or paid the fee. Judge Colleen McMahon also ruled that an appeal would not qualify for fee-free status because it would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Levy v. Baruch College · No. 1:19-cv-07106
- Colleen McMahon
- Feb. 14, 2020
Background
The court directed Fred Levy to pay the $400 filing fee or submit an application to proceed without paying it because he could not afford the fee. After granting him more time, the court found his amended application deficient. On October 4, 2019, the court denied Levy permission to proceed without paying the fee and again directed him to pay within 30 days.
Levy challenged the court’s authority to deny fee-free status. On November 26, 2019, the court explained that the filing-fee statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, gives it broad discretion to decide whether a litigant has shown an inability to pay. The court nevertheless gave Levy another opportunity to submit a second amended application, stating that it was unclear whether he misunderstood the need to provide financial information or was deliberately concealing income.
Plaintiff’s Later Requests
Levy requested additional time. The court granted that request on January 8, 2020, and set January 20, 2020—the date Levy had requested—as the deadline for submitting the second amended application. The court received Levy’s letter on January 22, 2020. In it, he argued that submitting another application would infringe his constitutional rights. He also said he needed to add two employers to the complaint, needed more time to file employment charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and obtain another notice of the right to sue, and still needed an attorney to advise him about filing the application.
Ruling
The court rejected Levy’s constitutional objection for the reasons stated in its November 26 order. It also denied another extension, concluding that Levy had been given ample time to comply. Because he had neither submitted the second amended application nor paid the filing fee, Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915. The order stated that Levy could file a new complaint when ready, accompanied by the fee or a fully completed application showing that he could not pay.
The court separately certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) 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 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.