Xi-Amaru v. Director and/or Commissioner of Social Security Administration et al, No. 1:2018cv07028 - Document 4 (E.D.N.Y. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER dated 12/19/18 denying 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff must pay the $400 filing fee within 14 days of the entry of this order or the complaint will be dismissed. The Court certifies p ursuant to 28:1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). ( Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 12/19/2018 ) c/m (Guzzi, Roseann)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Xi-Amaru v. Director and/or Commissioner of Social Security Administration et al UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------ZAATNURE XI-AMARU, Plaintiff, - against DIRECTOR AND/OR COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, KINGS COUNTY, JANE OR JOHN DOE FACILITY/STATION DIRECTOR, JANE OR JOHN DOE SUPERVISOR, and JANE DOE, Defendants. ----------------------------------------------------------- Doc. 4 C/M X : : : : : : : : : : : : : X MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER 18-cv-7028 (BMC) COGAN, District Judge. Pro se plaintiff Zaatnure Xi-Amaru brings this action because the Social Security Administration (the “SSA”) denied his request for a name change. 1 Because plaintiff has failed to demonstrate grounds for in forma pauperis status, the in forma pauperis motion is denied. The complaint alleges that plaintiff attempted to change the name on his social security card by presenting certain documents, including documents relating to plaintiff’s identification as a Native American, at a social security office. In response, plaintiff allegedly received a letter from the SSA indicating that the SSA was not able to honor plaintiff’s documents; that the United States government does not recognize plaintiff’s tribe; and that plaintiff could contact the Bureau of Indian Affairs or “go to U.S. civil court.” Plaintiff then sued defendants for violation of his rights under the United States Constitution. The purpose of allowing litigants to proceed in forma pauperis is to allow indigent persons to have equal access to the judicial system. Davis v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., No. 10 CV 1 Plaintiff’s gender is not apparent from the name. Dockets.Justia.com 3812, 2010 WL 3419671 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2010). A court may dismiss a case brought by a plaintiff requesting to proceed in forma pauperis if the “allegation of poverty is untrue.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A). Whether a plaintiff qualifies for in forma pauperis status is within the discretion of the district court. Cabey v. Atria Senior Living, No. 13 CV 3612, 2014 WL 794279 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2014). Plaintiff claims to earn $70,000 in gross pay and have a take-home pay of $30,000 this year. Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application has not indicated that plaintiff is unable to pay the Court’s filing fee, so plaintiff’s motion [2] to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Plaintiff must pay the $400 filing fee within 14 days of the entry of this order or the complaint will be dismissed. 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 purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED. Digitally signed by Brian M. Cogan ______________________________________ U.S.D.J. Dated: Brooklyn, New York December 19, 2018 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
