Kang v. Chase

Background

Kai Kang filed this action without a lawyer and asked to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), meaning without prepaying the filing fees. On August 21, 2020, the court ordered Kang either to submit an amended IFP application or pay the $400 filing fee. The court warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal and explained that his original application did not establish that he could not pay.

The original application stated that Kang had no income, resources, expenses, or debts. In response to how he supported himself, he wrote “Non-resident.” The court found that this did not explain how he paid his living expenses.

Amended Application

Kang filed an amended IFP application on August 26, 2020. He stated that he had no present income, that his last employment ended on March 31, 2016, and that he had earned $9,500 per month when he last worked. He reported paying $218 per week in child support and $25 per month for cell-phone service, described as “suspended.” He again wrote “non-resident” when asked how he paid his living expenses, but also said that he lived “from own savings.”

Kang reported $0 in cash in checking or savings accounts. He stated that he did not know the value of a brokerage account, a 529 account, and a vehicle involved in another case.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the amended application did not correct the deficiencies in the original application. Because Kang had not fully disclosed his financial information, the court could not determine whether he qualified for IFP status under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice. It directed the Clerk of Court to mail Kang a copy of the order and note service on the docket. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide the underlying claims against Chase.