Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Samuel Thomas,
Plaintiff,
-v-
Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
2:25-cv-6541
(NJC)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
NUSRAT J. CHOUDHURY, United States District Judge:
Presently b efore the Court is an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) filed by
counsel on behalf of plaintiff Samuel Thomas together with a Complaint seeking review
pursuant to Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), of a
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security. (See Compl., ECF No. 1; IFP App., ECF No.
2.) For the reasons that follow, the application to proceed IFP is denied without prejudice and
with leave to renew upon filing the enclosed “Application to Proceed in District Court without
Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form)” (AO 239) (“Long Form”). Alternatively, Thomas may
pay the $405.00 filing fee within fourteen (14) days in order for this case to proceed.
To qualify for IFP status, the Supreme Court has long held that “an affidavit is sufficient
which states that one cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for the costs [inherent in
litigation] and still be able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life.”
Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948) (quotation marks and
alterations omitted). “The federal in forma pauperis statute represents a significant effort to
ensure the ability of impoverished litigants to prosecute meritorious claims or defenses without
Case 2:25-cv-06541-NJC Document 7 Filed 12/22/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
disadvantage.” Rosa v. Doe, 86 F.4th 1001, 1004 (2d Cir. 2023). Indeed, “[t]he purpose of the
statute permitting litigants to proceed IFP is to insure that indigent persons have equal access to
the judicial system.” Velasquez v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 24-cv-2035, 2024 WL 3202974, at
*2 (E.D.N.Y. June 26, 2024). Determining whether an applicant qualifies for IFP status is within
the discretion of the district court. See Rosa, 86 F.4th at 1007 (explaining IFP application denials
are reviewed for abuse of discretion). When a litigant’s application fails to establish the level of
poverty required under the IFP statute, such application is properly denied. See, e.g., Miller v.
Smith, No. 21-cv-2949, 2021 WL 2894973, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. June 2, 2021) (denying IFP motion
where the plaintiff did not disclose the balance in her checking account). The court may 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).
Here, Thomas’s application does not provide sufficient information for the Court to
reasonably conclude that he is unable to afford the filing fee. For example, Thomas has
responded with “0” or “NONE” to almost every question on the application. (See ECF No. 2.)
Thomas explains that he “currently reside[s] with my mother and she covers all household
expenses.” (Id. at ¶ 6.) Indeed, Thomas has omitted any expenses for housing and other regular
living expenses including utilities and transportation. (Id. in toto.) Thus, the present application
raises more questions than it answers and does not demonstrate that Thomas is qualified to
proceed IFP.
Accordingly, the IFP motion is denied without prejudice and with leave to renew on the
enclosed Long Form IFP application. “In assessing an application to proceed in forma pauperis,
a court may consider the resources that the applicant has or can get from those who ordinarily
Case 2:25-cv-06541-NJC Document 7 Filed 12/22/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
provide the applicant with the necessities of life, such as from a spouse, parent, adult sibling or
other next friend.” Fridman v. City of N.Y., 195 F. Supp. 2d 534, 537 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (cleaned
up). Further, “a court properly exercises its discretion to deny the [IFP] application” where it
appears that the 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.’’ Brooks v. Aiden 0821 Capital LLC, No.
19-cv-6823, 2020 WL 4614323, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. July 22, 2020) (quoting Fridman, 195 F. Supp.
2d at 537) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, Thomas shall include the financial
information for his mother and any other person or persons who support him financially in the
spaces marked “spouse” on the renewed application. Alternatively, Thomas may pay the $405.00
filing fee. Thomas shall either file the renewed IFP application or remit the filing fee within two
(2) weeks of the date of this Order or the Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice.
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order
would not be taken in good faith and therefore IFP status is denied for the purpose of any appeal.
See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962).
Dated: Central Islip, New York
December 22, 2025
/s/ Nusrat J. Choudhury
NUSRAT J. CHOUDHURY
United States District Judge
Case 2:25-cv-06541-NJC Document 7 Filed 12/22/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>