Grazette v. Manpower
- Laura Swain
- 1:21-cv-04296
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Grazette v. Manpower, Judge Swain ordered David I. Grazette to pay fees or submit a second fee-waiver application.
David I. Grazette was required to pay the court fees or submit a complete second amended fee-waiver application; the case would be dismissed if he failed to comply or submitted an insufficient application.
What happened
In Grazette v. Manpower, David I. Grazette brought the action without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying the filing fees. His first two applications did not fully explain his income, expenses, benefits, employment history, or debts.
The court said Grazette’s ability to pay the $402 in filing and administrative fees remained unclear. It gave him one final opportunity to either pay the fees or submit a complete second application explaining his finances, including to whom his $50,000 debt was payable.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered Grazette to comply within 30 days. No summons would issue then, and the court said it would dismiss the action if his second application was insufficient. The court also denied fee-waiver status for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Grazette v. Manpower · No. 1:21-cv-04296
- Laura Swain
- Feb. 15, 2022
Background
David I. Grazette filed this action without a lawyer against Manpower, Stefani Perez, Maximus, Shelly R. Lucas, and Rodney Menelas. To proceed without prepaying court fees, a plaintiff must submit a signed application for authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), meaning without prepayment of fees, or pay the required fees.
Grazette submitted an IFP application with his complaint, but the court found it incomplete. He said he was employed but did not provide his gross monthly pay or explain how he paid his living expenses. He also reported $5 in a bank account and a $53,000 debt without identifying the person or entity to whom the debt was payable.
The court previously directed Grazette to pay $402 or submit an amended IFP application. His amended application stated that he was unemployed but omitted his last employment date and prior gross monthly wages. It also reported receiving more than $200 during the preceding 12 months from self-employment or other public benefits, while stating that he was unemployed without unemployment benefits. The application listed $400 in a bank account, monthly rent of $800, monthly utilities of $150, and $50,000 in debts, but again did not identify the creditor.
Court’s Order
The court found that Grazette’s ability to pay the fees remained unclear and granted him one final opportunity. Within 30 days of the order, he had to either pay the $402 in filing fees or submit a second amended IFP application. The application had to clearly state his monthly income, the sources of that income, how he paid his monthly expenses, and to whom the $50,000 debt was payable.
The court explained that, if it granted the second amended IFP application, Grazette could proceed without prepaying fees. If the application remained insufficient, the court would dismiss the action for failure to comply with the court’s order. No summons would issue at that time, and the case would be processed under the Clerk’s Office procedures only if Grazette complied.
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 IFP status for purposes of an appeal. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.