Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca3-15-02830/USCOURTS-ca3-15-02830-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Guy Harbert
Not Party
Marty Harbin
Not Party
Jerry A. Hurst
Appellant
Colin M. Shalk
Not Party
Nicholas E. Skiles
Not Party
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co
Not Party
Maxwell Wiegard
Not Party

Document Text:

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-2830

___________

JERRY A. HURST,

Appellant

v.

COLIN M. SHALK, in their individual and official capacities; MAXWELL WIEGARD, 

in their individual and official capacities; MARTY HARBIN, in their individual and 

official capacities; GUY HARBERT, in their individual and official capacities; 

NICHOLAS E. SKILES, in their individual and official capacities; STATE FARM 

MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO; DOES 1-10

____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the District of Delaware

(D. Del. Civil Action No. 1-15-cv-00360)

District Judge: Honorable Gregory M. Sleet

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

August 1, 2016

Before: FUENTES, VANASKIE and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: August 2, 2016 )

___________

OPINION*

___________

PER CURIAM

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.

Case: 15-2830 Document: 003112369286 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/02/2016
2

Jerry Hurst, proceeding pro se, appeals an order of the United States District Court 

for the District of Delaware denying his motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed 

in forma pauperis. For the reasons that follow, we will vacate the District Court’s order 

and remand for further proceedings.

Hurst filed a complaint against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 

Company and other parties claiming violations of the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, 18 

U.S.C. §§ 2721-2725, and other laws. Hurst filed an application to proceed in forma

pauperis, or without prepayment of the District Court’s fees for filing a civil action. 

Hurst, who is 73 years old, submitted an affidavit stating that he had received social 

security income in the amount of $1,410 per month over the last 12 months, and that he 

expected to receive $1,420 per month. Hurst does not appear to be married. He reported 

that he had $30 in cash, $57.79 in a checking account, and a 1990 BMW automobile, 

which he valued at $600 and stated was in need of repair. Hurst reported that his total 

monthly expenses were $1,760 per month, including $620 for rent and utilities, $360 for 

food, $160 for medical and dental expenses, $170 for transportation, and $250 for credit 

card payments. He stated that the costs of his necessities, including surgery and dental 

care, exceed his income. 

The District Court denied Hurst’s application based on his reported annual income 

of $16,920. The District Court ordered Hurst to pay the $400 filing fee within 30 days or 

his case would be dismissed. Hurst appealed and we granted his motion to proceed in

forma pauperis on appeal.

Case: 15-2830 Document: 003112369286 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/02/2016
3

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Sinwell v. Shapp, 536 F.2d 

15, 16 (3d Cir. 1976). We review the District Court’s decision for abuse of discretion. 

See Jones v. Zimmerman, 752 F.2d 76, 78 (3d Cir. 1985).

A decision whether to grant a motion to proceed in forma pauperis depends solely 

on whether a litigant is economically eligible for such status. Sinwell, 536 F.2d at 19. 

The purpose of the in forma pauperis statute “is to provide an entre, not a barrier, to the 

indigent seeking relief in the federal court.” Souder v. McGuire, 516 F.2d 820, 823 (3d 

Cir. 1975). A person need not be absolutely destitute to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). However, a 

litigant “must establish that he is unable to pay the costs of his suit.” Walker v. People 

Express Airlines, Inc., 886 F.2d 598, 601 (3d Cir. 1989).

Hurst argues on appeal that the District Court erred in considering his income 

without his expenses, including expenses for necessary medical and dental care. He 

asserts that his income is not sufficient to pay for the necessities of life and the court’s 

filing fees. Based on Hurst’s reported low income, lack of assets, and expenses, we 

conclude that he established that he is unable to pay the costs of his suit. See Adkins, 335 

U.S. at 339 (an affidavit stating that one cannot because of his poverty pay for the court’s 

costs and the necessities of life is sufficient to be afforded in forma pauperis status).1

 

1Hurst reported in District Court that his salary before he retired in 1998 was $6,771 per 

month, but that was 17 years before he filed his complaint. There is no indication that he 

retained any of that income.

Case: 15-2830 Document: 003112369286 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/02/2016
4

 Accordingly, we will vacate the District Court’s order denying Hurst’s motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis and remand for further proceedings.2

 

2To the extent Hurst asserts in his brief that the District Judge should have recused 

himself, he has not shown that recusal was required.

Case: 15-2830 Document: 003112369286 Page: 4 Date Filed: 08/02/2016