UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 20-80987-CV-BLOOM

 17-80095-CR-BLOOM

WILLIE JUSTIN DAWKINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff Willie Justin Dawkins’s Application to 

Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“Motion”), ECF No. [14], which the 

Court construes as a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The Court has carefully 

considered the Motion, the record in this case, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set 

forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion is granted. 

Fundamental to our system of justice is that the courthouse doors will not be closed to persons 

based on their inability to pay a filing fee. Congress has provided that a court “may authorize the 

commencement, prosecution, or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal 

therein, without prepayment of fees . . . therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes 

a statement of all assets such [person] possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a)(1); see Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305, 1306 n.1 (11th Cir. 2004) 

(interpreting § 1915 to apply to all persons seeking to proceed IFP). 

Case 9:20-cv-80987-BB Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2020 Page 1 of 3
Case No. 20-cv-80987 -BLOOM

2

Section 1915(a) requires a determination as to whether “the statements in the [applicant’s] 

affidavit satisfy the requirement of poverty.” Watson v. Ault, 525 F.2d 886, 891 (5th Cir. 1976).1 An 

applicant’s “affidavit will be held sufficient if it represents that the litigant, because of his poverty, 

is unable to pay for the court fees and costs, and to support and provide necessities for himself and 

his dependents.” Martinez, 364 F.3d at 1307; see also Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 

U.S. 331, 339 (1948) (in forma pauperis status is demonstrated when, because of poverty, one cannot 

“pay or give security for the costs and still be able to provide himself and dependents with the 

necessities of life.”). The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) poverty guidelines are 

central to an assessment of an applicant’s poverty. See Taylor v. Supreme Court of N.J., 261 F. App’x 

399, 401 (3d Cir. 2008) (using HHS Guidelines as basis for § 1915 determination); Lewis v. Ctr. 

Mkt., 378 F. App’x 780, 784 (10th Cir. 2010) (affirming use of HHS guidelines); see also Annual 

Update of the HHS Poverty Guidelines, 85 Fed. Reg. 3060 (Jan. 17, 2020). Further, the § 1915 

analysis requires “comparing the applicant’s assets and liabilities in order to determine whether he 

has satisfied the poverty requirement.” Thomas v. Chattahoochee Judicial Circuit, 574 F. App’x

916, 917 (11th Cir. 2014). Ultimately, permission to proceed in forma pauperis is committed to the 

sound discretion of the Court. Camp v. Oliver, 798 F.2d 434, 437 (11th Cir. 1986).

To the extent that Movant is appealing the Court’s Order, ECF No. [7], denying Movant’s

pro se Motion under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence, ECF No. [1], he 

may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Movant is currently incarcerated, and he swears in his

Motion that he does not earn any wages and is currently unemployed. See ECF No. [14]. Movant

has also attached a copy of his inmate account reflecting a current account balance of $400.80. See 

id. at 6. Upon review of the HHS poverty guidelines and after examining Movant’s financial 

1 Pursuant to Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981), opinions of the Court of 

Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued prior to October 1, 1981, are binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit.

Case 9:20-cv-80987-BB Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2020 Page 2 of 3
Case No. 20-cv-80987 -BLOOM

3

situation, the Court determines that he is unable to pay the required filing fee and thus qualifies for 

indigent status under § 1915. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Movant’s Motion, ECF No. [14], is 

GRANTED. 

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on October 1, 2020.

_________________________________

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: Counsel of Record

Willie Justin Dawkins

16254-104 

Coleman Medium 

Federal Correctional Institution 

Inmate Mail/Parcels 

Post Office Box 1032 

Coleman, FL 33521 

PRO SE

Case 9:20-cv-80987-BB Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/01/2020 Page 3 of 3