Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 14, 2024

Griffith v. Southeast Grand Street Guild

Judge
Laura Swain
Docket
1:24-cv-01281
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Pro SeCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Griffith v. Southeast Grand Street Guild, Judge Swain ordered the plaintiffs to pay fees or submit corrected applications to proceed without prepayment.

Who this affects

Loretta Griffith/Loretta Hudson and Calvin Hudson, who must either pay the required fees or submit separate, complete, signed amended applications within 30 days to avoid dismissal of the action.

What happened

In Griffith v. Southeast Grand Street Guild, Loretta Griffith/Loretta Hudson and Calvin Hudson filed the case without lawyers and submitted applications asking to proceed without paying court fees upfront.

The court found that the applications did not provide enough separate, signed, and complete financial information for each plaintiff. It ordered each plaintiff, within 30 days, either to pay $405 or submit a corrected application; no summons will issue yet.

If the plaintiffs do not comply, the case will be dismissed. Judge Laura Taylor Swain also determined that an appeal from this order would not qualify for fee-free appeal status.

The detailed version

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

Case
Griffith v. Southeast Grand Street Guild · No. 1:24-cv-01281
Judge
Laura Swain
Date
Mar. 14, 2024

Background

Loretta Griffith/Loretta Hudson and Calvin Hudson brought this action without lawyers. The plaintiffs submitted two applications to proceed without prepaying fees, commonly called applications to proceed in forma pauperis, or IFP applications.

Court’s analysis

The court could not determine whether either plaintiff was unable to pay the required $405 in fees, consisting of a $350 filing fee and a $55 administrative fee. The applications did not clearly show that each plaintiff had signed his or her own application, contained identical information without identifying whose information was provided, and did not state when the plaintiffs were last employed. The plaintiffs also reported no income, money, or assets and answered “No” or “N/A” to questions about paying living expenses, dependents, debts, and other financial obligations. The court found that the applications did not fully explain how the plaintiffs paid their living expenses.

Order

The court ordered that, within 30 days of March 14, 2024, the plaintiffs must either pay the $405 in fees or each submit an amended IFP application. Each amended application must answer all relevant questions, provide facts showing that the individual plaintiff cannot pay the fees, identify docket number 24-CV-01281 (LTS), and be signed by that plaintiff. If the court grants the amended applications, the plaintiffs may proceed without prepaying fees.

No summons will issue at this time. If the plaintiffs comply, the clerk’s office will process the case under its usual procedures; if they do not comply within the allowed period, the action will be dismissed. Judge Laura Taylor Swain also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.