Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 8, 2021

Gomez v. New York City Department of Education

Judge
Analisa Torres
Docket
1:21-cv-01711
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Pro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Gomez v. New York City Department of Education, Judge Torres ordered pro se plaintiff Minerva Gomez to pay fees or amend her fee-waiver application.

Who this affects

Minerva Gomez must either pay the $402 in fees or submit an amended IFP application within 30 days. The case will be dismissed if she does not comply, and no summons will issue at this time.

What happened

In Gomez v. New York City Department of Education, Minerva Gomez sued the New York City Department of Education and Marcia Sulit-Torres, identified as a principal. Gomez is representing herself.

Gomez asked to proceed without paying the filing fees. The court found that her application said she was unemployed, while her complaint said she was working as a teacher, so it could not determine whether she could pay.

Judge Analisa Torres ordered Gomez, within 30 days, either to pay $402 or submit an amended application explaining why she cannot pay, including her current employment status and salary if employed. No summons will issue yet, and the action will be dismissed if she does not comply; the court also denied fee-waiver status for any appeal from this order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Gomez v. New York City Department of Education · No. 1:21-cv-01711
Judge
Analisa Torres
Date
Mar. 8, 2021

Background

Minerva Gomez brought this action without a lawyer against the New York City Department of Education and Marcia Sulit-Torres, identified in the caption as a principal. To proceed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Gomez had to pay $402 in filing and administrative fees or request permission to proceed without paying those fees in advance. That request is called an application to proceed in forma pauperis, or an IFP application.

Gomez submitted an IFP application. The court identified an inconsistency: the application stated that she was not employed, while the complaint stated that she was currently employed as a teacher. Because of that inconsistency, the court said it could not assess her ability to pay the fees.

Order

The court ordered Gomez, within 30 days of March 8, 2021, to do one of two things: pay the $402 in fees or submit an amended IFP application. The amended application must use docket number 21-CV-1711 (AT) and provide facts showing that she cannot pay. It must state her current employment status and, if she is employed, her current salary.

If the court grants the amended IFP application, Gomez may proceed without paying the fees in advance. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail the order to Gomez and record service on the docket. No summons was to issue at that time. If Gomez did not comply within the allowed time, the action would be dismissed.

Additional ruling and effect

Judge Analisa Torres certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. This order addressed payment of filing fees and the IFP application; it did not decide the underlying claims described in the opinion.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.