Pacheco v. 30th Precinct
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-11915
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Pacheco v. 30th Precinct, Judge McMahon gave Rodolfo Pacheco 30 days to pay fees or submit a complete fee-waiver application.
Rodolfo Pacheco, who must either pay the $400 filing fees or submit a complete second amended application to proceed without paying the fees upfront within 30 days.
What happened
Pacheco v. 30th Precinct concerns Rodolfo Pacheco’s request to bring his case without paying court fees upfront. He was representing himself and had previously been told to provide more information about his finances.
Pacheco’s amended application said he was unemployed, had no income, expenses, property, or debts, and supported his family. He did not explain how he paid for his own living expenses or supported his family, so the court could not determine whether he was unable to pay the fees.
Judge Colleen McMahon gave Pacheco one final opportunity: within 30 days, he had to pay $400 or submit a second, complete fee-waiver application. The order states that the case will be dismissed without prejudice if he does not comply, and it denies fee-free status for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Pacheco v. 30th Precinct · No. 1:19-cv-11915
- Colleen McMahon
- Mar. 2, 2020
Background
Rodolfo Pacheco filed this case without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying the filing fees upfront. This status is commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis, or IFP. On January 16, 2020, the court ordered Pacheco to submit an amended IFP application because his first application stated that he was unemployed and had no resources, expenses, or debts but did not explain how he paid his living expenses. Pacheco submitted an amended application on January 31, 2020.
Reason for the Order
The court found that the amended application still did not provide enough information. Pacheco again stated that he was unemployed, had no income, expenses, property, or debts, and supported his family. He did not explain how he supported himself and his family. The court said it was therefore unable to determine whether he could not afford the filing fees. The court also said it was unclear whether Pacheco misunderstood the requirement to provide complete financial information or was concealing income to obtain IFP status.
Ruling and Required Next Step
Judge Colleen McMahon gave Pacheco one final opportunity to show that he could not pay the filing fees. Within 30 days of the order, Pacheco had to either pay $400 or submit a second amended IFP application. The application had to answer every question, list all income sources and monthly expenses, and explain how he supported himself and his family. The order states that failure to comply will result in dismissal of the action without prejudice. If the court grants the second amended application, Pacheco may proceed without paying the fees upfront.
The court also directed the Clerk of Court to mail the order to Pacheco and record service on the docket. Under the applicable statute, the court certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. This order did not decide the underlying claims in the case.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.