Hudson v. Southeast Grand Street Guild
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-01319
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Hudson v. Southeast Grand Street Guild, Judge Swain ordered the plaintiffs to pay fees or submit amended fee-waiver applications before the case could proceed.
Loretta Hudson and Calvin Hudson, who must either pay the court fees or submit adequate amended applications to proceed without prepaying them.
What happened
In Hudson v. Southeast Grand Street Guild, Loretta Hudson and Calvin Hudson filed the case without lawyers and asked to proceed without paying the court fees upfront. Their applications did not give enough information for the court to determine whether either plaintiff could afford the fees.
The court found that it was unclear who signed each application, both applications contained the same information without identifying whose information it was, and the plaintiffs did not explain their last employment, income, living expenses, dependents, debts, or other financial obligations. The plaintiffs must either pay $405.00 or each submit a signed, completed amended application within thirty days.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain directed that no summons issue yet. If the plaintiffs comply, the case will be processed under the court’s procedures; if they do not, the action will be dismissed. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying fees.
The detailed version
- Hudson v. Southeast Grand Street Guild · No. 1:24-cv-01319
- Laura Swain
- Mar. 14, 2024
Background
Loretta Hudson and Calvin Hudson brought this action without lawyers. To proceed, they had to pay $405.00 in court fees, consisting of a $350.00 filing fee and a $55.00 administrative fee, or each submit a signed application to proceed without prepaying fees. This fee-waiver procedure is known as proceeding in forma pauperis, or IFP.
Court’s Analysis
The court determined that the two IFP applications did not contain enough information to decide whether either plaintiff was unable to pay the fees. The court said it was unclear whether each plaintiff had signed that plaintiff’s own application. The applications also contained exactly the same information without identifying whose information was provided. In addition, the plaintiffs stated that they were not currently employed, but did not give the date of their last employment. They reported no income, money, or assets and answered “No” or “N/A” to every question about paying living expenses, dependents, debts, and other financial obligations. Because the applications did not explain how the plaintiffs paid their living expenses, the court could not determine that either plaintiff lacked sufficient funds.
Order
The court ordered that, within thirty days of March 14, 2024, the plaintiffs must either pay the $405.00 in fees or each submit an amended IFP application. Each amended application must answer all relevant questions, provide facts showing inability to pay, identify docket number 24-CV-01319 (LTS), and be signed by the plaintiff who submitted it. If the court grants the amended applications, the plaintiffs may proceed without prepaying fees.
The court directed that no summons issue at that time. If the plaintiffs comply, the case will be processed under the Clerk’s Office procedures. If they fail to comply within the permitted time, the action will be dismissed. Judge Laura Taylor Swain also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal. The order did not decide the underlying claims against the defendants.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.