Kang v. Citibank

Background

Kai Kang filed the action against Citibank without a lawyer and requested permission to proceed without paying the filing fee, known as proceeding in forma pauperis. On August 27, 2020, the court ordered Kang either to submit an amended financial application within 30 days or pay the $400 filing fee. The court warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal and noted that the original application did not show that Kang was unable to pay the fee.

Kang filed an amended application on August 31, 2020. He stated that he had no current income, but reported that he had earned $9,500 per month in his last job, which ended on March 31, 2016. He also reported paying $218 per week in child support and $25 per month for cell phone service, marked “suspended.” He said he paid these and other living expenses entirely from his savings, but stated that he did not know the value of his brokerage account and reported having no cash in checking or savings accounts.

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 to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Ruling

Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the complaint without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915. The opinion therefore did not address the underlying claims against Citibank. The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal.