Patel v. Patel
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-08765
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Patel v. Patel, Chief Judge Swain ordered payment of fees or a corrected application to proceed without prepaying them.
Raj K. Patel, whose request to proceed without prepaying the filing fees was not approved on the submitted application and who was ordered to pay the fees or submit an amended application.
What happened
In Patel v. Patel, Raj K. Patel brought a civil action without a lawyer and submitted an application asking to proceed without paying the court fees upfront.
The court found that his application did not establish that he could not pay. Although he reported unemployment, past earnings, monthly expenses, and more than $40,000 in debt, he answered “No” or “N/A” to every question about assets and income and did not explain how he paid his living expenses.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain ordered Raj K. Patel, within 30 days, to pay $402 in fees or submit a complete and signed amended application. The case was not dismissed by this order, but the court said it will be dismissed if he does not comply; the court also denied payment-free status for any appeal from the order.
The detailed version
- Patel v. Patel · No. 1:23-cv-08765
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 11, 2023
Background
Raj K. Patel brought this civil action without a lawyer. To proceed in federal court, a plaintiff must either pay a $350 filing fee and a $52 administrative fee, for a total of $402, or submit a signed application asking to proceed without prepaying the fees. This type of application is commonly called an IFP application.
Patel submitted an IFP application. He stated that he was unemployed, had not worked since August 2022, and had earned $800 per month when employed. He also listed monthly expenses of $120 for a cellphone, $850 for loan repayment, and $3,000 in other expenses, and stated that he had more than $40,000 in debt. But he answered “No” or “N/A” to every question about his assets or sources of income. He did not provide information explaining how he paid his living expenses.
Court’s action
The court held that the incomplete application did not allow it to conclude that Patel lacked enough money to pay the fees. The court ordered him, within 30 days of the order, either to pay the $402 in fees or to fully complete, sign, and submit an amended IFP application labeled with docket number 23-CV-8765. If the court grants the amended application, Patel may proceed without prepaying the fees.
No answer from the defendants was required at that time. The court stated that the action would be dismissed if Patel failed to comply within the allowed time. The court did not dismiss the action in this order. It also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied payment-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.