Bell v. Iozzo

Background

Renzer Bell, representing himself, sued Marc F. Iozzo, Ogden Lincoln, Inc., and Westmont Lincoln, LLC under the court’s diversity jurisdiction. In his amended complaint, Bell alleged that the defendants breached an agreement. He stated that the agreement appeared to provide him $1,080 in consideration, while alleging $75,980 in damages for the breach.

Bell applied to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, a status commonly called proceeding without paying fees upfront. The application asked whether he owned real estate or anything else of value, including property held in someone else’s name. Bell did not disclose any real-property interest and instead wrote that he had judgments and accounts receivable.

The court noted that, in an earlier related proceeding, No. 20-CV-1588 (S.D.N.Y.), a judge had revoked Bell’s fee-waiver status after reviewing property records. Those records indicated that Bell was trustee of two trusts holding two Florida homes, valued in the property-tax records at $151,046 and $43,095. The earlier proceeding had been dismissed without prejudice because the record did not establish whether Bell acted intentionally.

Show-cause responses

After noticing what appeared to be the same omission in this case, the court ordered Bell to explain why his fee-waiver status should not be revoked. Bell argued that the deeds listed the trusts rather than him as the legal owner, that the properties generated no revenue and required significant improvements, and that he had paid substantial delinquent taxes. He also argued that his financial condition supported allowing him to proceed without prepaying fees. The court treated those arguments as addressing his current financial condition, rather than whether he had accurately reported his assets when he filed the application.

Bell also raised arguments about other lawsuits, alleged disrespectful treatment, and race. The court stated that those arguments did not establish that he had not deliberately concealed assets in this case.

Court’s reasoning

Federal law requires dismissal of a case filed without prepaying fees when the court determines that the applicant’s allegation of poverty is untrue. The court explained that an inaccurate statement made in good faith does not necessarily require dismissal, but that dismissal is appropriate when a plaintiff deliberately conceals or misrepresents financial assets to obtain fee-waiver status.

The court found that Bell had brought more than 20 actions in that court and many more around the country. It concluded that, before filing this application, Bell had been put on notice that the application required disclosure of a legal interest in real property even if the property was titled in someone else’s name. Because Bell nevertheless omitted the information shortly after litigating the same issue in an earlier related proceeding, the court concluded that he deliberately misrepresented his assets to avoid prepaying the filing fee.

Disposition

The court revoked the order granting Bell permission to proceed without prepaying fees and dismissed the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A). It certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to enter judgment.