Kane v. Garland

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------X
SHAWN K. KANE,
Plaintiff,
ORDER
-against- 	No. 25-CV-6680 (NCM) (JRC)
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL MERRICK B.
GARLAND, Attorney General of the United
States, U.S. Department of Justice,
Defendant.
--------------------------------------------------------------X
JAMES R. CHO, United States Magistrate Judge:
Plaintiff Shawn K. Kane brings this pro se action, along with an application to proceed in
forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) 	For the reasons discussed
below, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) is denied. 	In order to
proceed with this action, Plaintiff is granted until February 27, 2026, to pay the $405.00 filing
fee.
The purpose of the statute permitting litigants to proceed IFP is to ensure that indigent
persons have equal access to the judicial system. 	Davis v. NYC Dept. of Educ., No. 10-CV-
3812, 2010 WL 3419671, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2010) (citing Gregory v. NYC Health &
Hospitals Corp., No. 07-CV-1531, 2007 WL 1199010, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 17, 2007)); Cuoco
v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 328 F. Supp. 2d 463, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2004). 	A plaintiff seeking to
proceed IFP must submit an affidavit stating “that [he or she] is unable to pay” filing fees “or
give security therefor.” 	28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 	Section 1915 authorizes a court to dismiss a
case brought by a plaintiff requesting to proceed IFP if the “allegation of poverty is untrue,” 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A), and courts in this District often treat that dismissal provision as
applicable when a litigant’s statement of assets fails to establish the level of poverty required
Case 1:25-cv-06680-NCM-JRC Document 4 Filed 02/12/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
under the IFP statute. 	See, e.g., Miller v. Smith, No. 21-CV-2949, 2021 WL 2894973, at *2
(E.D.N.Y. June 2, 2021); Humphrey v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, No. 21-CV-1901, 2021 WL
1837791, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. May 7, 2021). 	The question of whether a plaintiff qualifies for IFP
status is within the discretion of the district court. 	Grimes v. Sil, No. 19-CV-1066, 2019 WL
981639, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 2019). 	“If it appears that an applicant’s access to [ ] court has
not been blocked by his financial condition; rather [that] he is merely in the position of having to
weigh the financial constraints posed if he pursues [his position] against the merits of his case,
then a court properly exercises its discretion to deny the application.” 	Brooks v. Aiden 0821
Capital LLC, No. 19-CV-6823, 2020 WL 4614323, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. July 22, 2020) (quoting
Fridman v. City of New York, 195 F. Supp. 2d 534, 537 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)).
Here, Plaintiff earns $3,863.00 per month in salary, receives $3,968.00 each month in
Veterans Disability benefits, has $465.00 in monthly expenses and has no debts or dependents.
(ECF No. 2, ¶¶ 2, 6-8.) 	Notably, he has $137,000.00 in a Thrift Savings Plan and $16,000.00 in
cash or in a checking or savings account. 	(Id. at ¶¶ 4-5.) 	Based on this information, the Court
is not persuaded that he is unable to pay the filing fee to bring this action.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s IFP application is denied. 	In order to proceed with this action,
Plaintiff is granted until February 27, 2026, to pay the $405.00 filing fee.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and
note the mailing on the docket. All further proceedings shall be stayed.
Case 1:25-cv-06680-NCM-JRC Document 4 Filed 02/12/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken
in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal.
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED
Dated: Brooklyn, New York
February 12, 2026
s/ James R. Cho
James R. Cho
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-06680-NCM-JRC Document 4 Filed 02/12/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>