Lininger v. The Franklyn County State of Pennsylvania No 8
- Louis Stanton
- 1:20-cv-06509
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Jackie Kennedy Contracted v. Cole Baker: Judge McMahon ordered payment or corrected fee applications before the case could proceed.
The three individuals listed as plaintiffs—Jackie Kennedy Contracted, Giah J. DeFranco/Leninger, and Richard E. Lininger—were required to pay the fees or submit individual completed applications. Any plaintiff who failed to comply could be dismissed without prejudice.
What happened
In Jackie Kennedy Contracted; Giah J. DeFranco/Leninger; Richard E. Lininger v. Cole Baker, et al., the court found the filing-fee application unclear and insufficient. The case appeared to involve three plaintiffs, but only one application was submitted and it was signed by one person.
The court gave each plaintiff thirty days to pay the $400 filing and administrative fees or submit a separate, complete application to proceed without paying fees in advance. The court stated that any plaintiff who failed to comply would be dismissed from the action without prejudice. No summons would issue at that time.
Chief Judge Colleen McMahon issued the order on September 4, 2020. She also denied fee-free status for any appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Lininger v. The Franklyn County State of Pennsylvania No 8 · No. 1:20-cv-06509
- Louis Stanton
- Sept. 4, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs brought the action without lawyers. To proceed, they had to either pay $400 in filing and administrative fees or each submit a signed application requesting permission to proceed without paying fees in advance.
The plaintiffs submitted only one application. The court found it unclear which plaintiff had completed it, and the application listed plaintiffs differently from the complaint. The complaint appeared to have been brought by three plaintiffs—“Jackie Kennedy Contracted,” “Giah J. DeFranco/Leninger,” and “Richard E. Lininger”—although only Richard E. Lininger was identified as a plaintiff in the complaint’s “Parties” section. The complaint also appeared to be signed by three individuals.
Fee Application
The court found the application insufficient because it did not provide enough reliable information about the applicant’s income, expenses, or assets. The applicant described employment, monthly pay, income sources, assets, and expenses using responses such as “classified,” “waiting to be discharged. money is kept by handler,” and “Yes: actor to the Gap Status.” As a result, the court could not determine that the applicant was unable to pay the fees.
Order
Within thirty days, the plaintiffs were required either to pay the $400 in fees or for each plaintiff to submit a separate application. Each application had to clearly state the plaintiff’s name and fully answer the applicable questions with facts showing an inability to pay. If the court granted an application, that plaintiff could proceed without paying the fees in advance.
The court stated that any plaintiff who failed to submit a completed application would be dismissed from the action without prejudice, meaning the dismissal would not bar refiling. The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Richard E. Lininger, and no summons was to issue at that time. The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Disposition
This was an administrative and filing-fee order, not a decision on the underlying claims. The court directed payment of the fees or submission of amended individual applications and warned that noncompliant plaintiffs would be dismissed without prejudice.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.