Almonte Chapman v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:21-cv-01303
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Almonte Chapman v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Ramos denied the filing-fee waiver application and allowed an amended application.
Clinton Javier Almonte Chapman was required to provide more information before seeking permission to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, and he was denied fee-free status for an appeal from this order.
What happened
Clinton Javier Almonte Chapman sued the Commissioner of Social Security and asked to proceed without paying the filing fee upfront. He stated that his wife was employed, but he did not know her salary and that she paid expenses.
The court denied Chapman’s application because he did not state how much his wife contributed to his income. The court allowed him to file an amended application providing that information by March 5, 2021.
Judge Edgardo Ramos also ruled that any appeal of the order would not be considered to have been filed in good faith, so Chapman could not proceed without paying fees for the appeal.
The detailed version
- Almonte Chapman v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:21-cv-01303
- Edgardo Ramos
- Feb. 19, 2021
Background
Clinton Javier Almonte Chapman brought this action against the Commissioner of Social Security on February 12, 2021. He also applied to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, a status commonly called proceeding without payment of court fees. In the application, Chapman stated that his wife was employed, that he did not know her salary, and that she paid expenses.
Court’s analysis
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a person may start a federal action without prepaying filing fees by showing that he or she cannot afford them. The court determined that Chapman had not made that showing because he did not specify the amount of income or financial support he received from his wife.
Ruling
The court denied Chapman’s application to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. It permitted him to file an amended application specifying his wife’s contribution to his income by March 5, 2021. 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 fee-free status for an appeal. The order did not decide the underlying Social Security dispute.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.