Kang v. United States
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:20-cv-06206
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Kang v. United States, Judge McMahon dismissed Kai Kang’s action without prejudice because he did not fully disclose his finances.
Kai Kang’s action was dismissed without prejudice because the court could not determine whether he qualified to proceed without paying filing fees; fee-free status was also denied for an appeal.
What happened
In Kang v. United States, Kai Kang filed the action without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying court fees. The court had ordered him to file a corrected financial application or pay the required fees.
Kang submitted two additional applications. He reported no current income, said he lived from savings, and reported no money in his checking or savings accounts, but did not state the value of his brokerage account. The applications also listed child-support and cellphone expenses.
The court ruled that Kang had not corrected the missing financial information, so it dismissed the action without prejudice. Judge Colleen McMahon also denied fee-free status for any appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Kang v. United States · No. 1:20-cv-06206
- Colleen McMahon
- Sept. 21, 2020
Background
Kai Kang filed this action without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying the court’s filing fees, a status known as proceeding in forma pauperis. On August 17, 2020, the court ordered Kang to submit a corrected financial application within 30 days or pay $400 in fees, warning that failure to comply would result in dismissal.
Financial Applications
Kang filed financial applications on August 26 and September 14, 2020. He stated that he had no current income and that his last employment ended on March 31, 2016, when he earned $9,500 per month. He reported paying $218 per week in child support and $25 per month for cellphone service, with that cellphone amount marked “suspended.” He said he paid these and other living expenses entirely from his savings.
At the same time, Kang stated that he did not know the value of his brokerage account and reported $0.00 in his checking and savings accounts. The court found that these applications did not correct the deficiencies in his original application and that the incomplete financial information prevented it from determining whether he qualified to proceed without paying the filing fee.
Ruling
The court dismissed the action without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914 and 1915. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims. Judge Colleen McMahon also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.