Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 2, 2024

Lopez v. Rodriguez

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:23-cv-10751
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Lopez v. Rodriguez, Judge Swain ordered Lopez to pay fees or amend his application after finding his financial information insufficient.

Who this affects

Luther Lopez, who must either pay the filing fees or submit an amended fee-waiver application for the case to proceed.

What happened

In Lopez v. Rodriguez, Luther Lopez filed a lawsuit without a lawyer and asked to proceed without paying court fees upfront.

The court found that Lopez’s application did not provide enough information about his employment, income, expenses, and ability to pay rent. He stated that he was unemployed, had little cash, and had debts, but did not explain how he was paying his living expenses.

Judge Swain ordered Lopez, within 30 days, to pay $405 or submit an amended application. The court also said no summons would issue yet and denied fee-free status for any appeal from the order.

The detailed version

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

Case
Lopez v. Rodriguez · No. 1:23-cv-10751
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Jan. 2, 2024

Background

Luther Lopez sued the New York Secretary of State and Robert Rodriguez, in his official capacity. Lopez was representing himself. He submitted an application to proceed without prepaying court fees, commonly called an application to proceed in forma pauperis, or “IFP.”

The court explained that proceeding with a civil action required either paying $405 in fees—a $350 filing fee and a $55 administrative fee—or submitting a signed IFP application. Lopez’s application stated that he was unemployed and had previously earned $800 to $1,000 per month as a food delivery driver. But he did not provide his last employment date or explain how he was paying his monthly expenses despite stating that he had no income. He also reported having less than $100 in cash or bank funds, no property, $1,000 in monthly rent, $24,000 in student loans, and other debts.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that Lopez had provided insufficient information about how he was paying his living expenses without income. Because of that missing information, the court could not determine whether he was unable to afford the filing fees.

Order

The court ordered Lopez, within 30 days of January 2, 2024, to either pay the $405 in fees or submit an amended IFP application. The amended application was required to answer all relevant questions and provide facts showing that Lopez could not pay the fees. It also had to include docket number 23-CV-10751 (LTS). If the court later granted the amended application, Lopez could proceed without prepaying the fees.

The court directed that no summons issue at that time. It stated that the case would be processed under the Clerk’s Office procedures if Lopez complied, and that the action would be dismissed if he did not comply within the allowed time. The court also certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-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.