Hill v. N.Y. State Fund Ins.

ORDER and REPORT-RECOMMENDATION The Clerk has sent this pro se complaint together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis and motion for appointment of counsel filed by Bonita Hill (“Plaintiff”) to the Court for review. (Dkt. Nos. 1, 2, 3.) For the reasons discussed below, I deny Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application (Dkt. No. 2), deny Plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel (Dkt. No. 3), and recommend that Plaintiff’s Complaint (Dkt. No. 1) be dismissed without leave to amend. I. BACKGROUND Construed as liberally¹ as possible, Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that she was wronged by N.Y. State Fund Ins. (“Defendant”). (See generally Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff’s Complaint appears to include portions of the form complaints for (1) employment discrimination based on age, and (2) actions pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). (Id.) However, Plaintiff does not appear to allege any facts plausibly suggesting causes of action relevant to those forms. (Id.) Instead, Plaintiff appears to allege that she filed for workers’ compensation based on an injury that occurred on July 23, 2012, but that her application was improperly dismissed by Judge Borden because he did not see her C-3 form. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that Judge Borden then apologized for “ruining” her case but Plaintiff was not given a new case number. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that she appealed to a higher court and her appeal was improperly dismissed because she did not have the correct date of her injury. (Id.) Plaintiff also filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. No. 2.) II. PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS When a civil action is commenced in a federal district court, the statutory filing fee, currently set at $402, must ordinarily be paid. 28 U.S.C. §1914(a). A court is authorized, however, to grant IFP status if it determines that the plaintiff is unable to pay the required fee. 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(1).² Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915, where a plaintiff seeks leave to proceed IFP, the court must determine whether the plaintiff has demonstrated sufficient economic need to proceed without prepaying the required filing fee. 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(1). The decision of whether to grant an application to proceed IFP rests within the sound discretion of the court. Anderson v. Coughlin, 700 F.2d 37, 42 (2d Cir. 1983). The court must be satisfied “that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor” prior to granting IFP status. 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(1). To make this threshold showing, a plaintiff must demonstrate “that paying such fees would constitute a serious hardship on the plaintiff, not that such payment would render plaintiff destitute.” Fiebelkorn v. United States, 77 Fed. Cl. 59, 62 (Fed. Cl. 2007) (citing Adkins v. E.l. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948)); see also Potnick v. E. State Hosp., 701 F.2d 243, 244 (2d Cir. 1983) (“Section 1915[a] does not require a litigant to demonstrate absolute destitution[.]“); accord, Lee v. McDonald’s Corp., 231 F.3d 456, 459 (8th Cir. 2000). As the Second Circuit has noted, “no party must be made to choose between abandoning a potential meritorious claim or foregoing the necessities of life.” Potnick, 701 F.2d at 244 (citing Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339). In support of an IFP application, 28 U.S.C. §1915 requires that a plaintiff submit an affidavit reflecting her assets. 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(1). Here, Plaintiff’s IFP application is incomplete. (Dkt. No. 2.) Plaintiff does not answer question 2, which asks the name and address of her employer and her wages. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff fails to answer most of the subparagraphs in question 3, which relate to sources of other income that Plaintiff may have received in the past 12 months. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff states that she receives income from “Disability, or worker’s compensation payments” but fails to describe the source and amount that she has received and what she expects to receive in the future. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff indicates that rent is her only regular monthly expense but fails to indicate the amount of that monthly expense. (Id. at 6.) In addition, Plaintiff fails to answer questions 7 and 8. (Id. at