Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

HUGUETTE NICOLE YOUNG,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:21cv66-TKW-HTC

GROVER ROBINSON,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

ORDER

Plaintiff Huguette Nicole Young, proceeding pro se, initiated this action by 

filing a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendant Mayor 

Grover Robinson. ECF Doc. 1. The crux of Plaintiff’s complaint is that the City of 

Pensacola’s mask ordinance violates her First Amendment rights. Although Plaintiff 

does not currently reside in Pensacola, she claims she has visited Pensacola and that 

she may move to Pensacola in the future. Plaintiff’s complaint is similar to over 

thirty (30) suits Plaintiff has filed across the country since August 2019, many of 

which, as discussed below, have been dismissed for lack of standing. 

Along with Plaintiff’s complaint, she also filed a motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis (ECF Doc. 2) and a motion for email filing and notification (ECF Doc. 3). 

Upon consideration, and for the reasons set forth below, both motions are DENIED. 

Case 3:21-cv-00066-TKW-HTC Document 5 Filed 01/14/21 Page 1 of 8
Page 2 of 8

Case No. 3:21cv66-TKW-HTC

Because the Court is denying Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, she 

must pay the full filing fee before the Court will take action on her complaint.

I. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is being denied because it is 

deficient and because the Court finds Plaintiff’s action to be frivolous. Authority 

for granting Plaintiff permission to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs is 

found at 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which states, in pertinent part:

(a)(1) Subject to subsection (b), any court of the United States may

authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action

or proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal therein, without prepayment 

of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that

includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses [and] that the

person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. Such 

affidavit shall state the nature of the action, defense or appeal and 

affiant’s belief that the person is entitled to redress.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); see Troville v. Venz, 303 F.3d 1256, 1260 (11th Cir. 2002)

(affirming the application of section 1915’s provisions to a non-prisoner’s 

complaint). 

The opportunity to proceed as an indigent in civil cases, created by statute, is 

not considered a right, but a privilege, Rivera v. Allin, 144 F.3d 719, 724 (11th 

Cir.), cert. dismissed, 524 U.S. 978 (1998), and “should not be a broad highway into 

the federal courts[,]” Phillips v. Mashburn, 746 F.2d 782, 785 (11th Cir. 1984). 

Thus, “a trial court has broad discretion in denying an application to proceed in 

Case 3:21-cv-00066-TKW-HTC Document 5 Filed 01/14/21 Page 2 of 8
Page 3 of 8

Case No. 3:21cv66-TKW-HTC

forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915, [but] must not act arbitrarily and it may 

not deny the application on erroneous grounds.” Pace v. Evans, 709 F.2d 1428, 1429 

(11th Cir. 1983) (citing Flowers v. Turbine Support Division, 507 F.2d 1242, 1244 

(5th Cir. 1975)).

“In order to authorize a litigant to proceed in forma pauperis, the court must 

make two determinations: first, whether the litigant is unable to pay the costs of 

commencing this action; and second, whether the action is frivolous or 

malicious.” Boubonis v. Chater, 957 F. Supp. 1071, 1072 (E.D. Wis. 1997) (citing 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) & (e)(2)(B)(i)). Specifically, under section 1915(e)(2)(B), the 

Court shall dismiss any claim filed under the in forma pauperis statute, which “fails 

to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or . . . seeks monetary relief against 

a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii).

As an initial matter, Plaintiff fails to provide any financial information to the 

Court sufficient for the Court to determine her indigency status. Instead of filling 

out the financial affidavit, Plaintiff simply states, “The following questions violate 

plaintiff’s right to privacy. Please see attached Application to Proceeed [sic] IFP.” 

ECF Doc. 2 at 3. The attached “application,” however, does not provide the Court 

with information sufficient to determine Plaintiff’s indigency status.

Instead, the self-titled “application” contains seven (7) pages of argument on 

(1) why the filing fee should be reduced to $100.00 for claims asserting 

Case 3:21-cv-00066-TKW-HTC Document 5 Filed 01/14/21 Page 3 of 8
Page 4 of 8

Case No. 3:21cv66-TKW-HTC

constitutional violations; (2) why indigency status should be granted regardless of 

whether Plaintiff provides the Court with financial information; and (3) why 28 

U.S.C. § 1915 (the in forma pauperis statute) should apply only to prisoners. Id. at 

5–11. Plaintiff also includes a brief from an appeal in the Ninth Circuit, which was 

dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute because she did not pay the 

docketing/filing fees, Young v. Richards, No. 20-35569 (9th Cir. 2020), and an 

incomplete “Request to Waive Court Fees” form. Id. at 12–42. 

The Court finds Plaintiff’s arguments to be unavailing. As Plaintiff has been 

told numerous times by other federal courts, if Plaintiff wants to proceed in forma 

pauperis, she must provide the Court with sufficient financial information to make 

that determination. See, e.g., Young v. Stothert, No. 8:20-CV-460, ECF Doc. 8 (D. 

Neb. Nov. 5, 2020) (denying Young’s seemingly identical motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis because, as she fails to do here, Young did not complete the required 

financial affidavit). In fact, it appears Plaintiff has a practice of not providing the 

information or following orders of the courts to do so. See, e.g., Young v. Richards, 

6:19-cv-1924 (D. Ore. May 27, 2020) (denying motion because of lack of 

information and dismissing case for failure to prosecute); Young v. Weiser, 1:20-cv2485, ECF. Doc. 6 (D. Colo. Sept. 23, 2020) (dismissing action for failing to cure 

deficiencies, including paying the filing fee or submitting a complete and proper 

motion); Young v. Tong, 3:20-cv-1521 (JAM) (D. Conn. Oct. 22, 2020) (same); 

Case 3:21-cv-00066-TKW-HTC Document 5 Filed 01/14/21 Page 4 of 8
Page 5 of 8

Case No. 3:21cv66-TKW-HTC

Young v. Bowser, 1:20-cv-2883-UNA (D.D.C. Dec. 22, 2020) (same); Young v. 

Jennings, 1:20-cv-1383-CFC (D. Del. Jan. 11, 2021) (same); Young v. Raoul, 1:20-

cv-5916 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 18, 2021) (same). Because Plaintiff has not provided the 

Court with information sufficient for the Court to determine her indigency status, 

her motion is DENIED. See N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 5.3.

As an additional matter, although Plaintiff’s failure to provide her financial 

information, alone, is a sufficient basis to deny the motion, the Court also notes that 

even if Plaintiff had provided the Court with sufficient information, her application 

would nonetheless be DENIED because she lacks standing to bring this claim. See 

Young v. Marshall, 1:20-cv-495-JB-MU (S.D. Ala. Dec. 4, 2020) (finding in 

pauperis status was not warranted regardless of lack of information because Plaintiff 

lacked standing and thus dismissing claim and identifying ten other actions filed in 

other states where Plaintiff claimed she was going to move to those states as a basis 

for establishing standing). 

The Court takes judicial notice that Plaintiff has filed a host of similar actions 

in other states, and in each case she made the same arguments she does here to 

establish standing, and in each case that argument was rejected. See, e.g., Young v. 

Raoul, No. 20-CV-3266, ECF Doc. 6, at 3 (C.D. Ill. Nov. 10, 2020) (dismissing 

Young’s similar complaint for lack of standing and noting that “[Young] has filed 

complaints . . . substantially identical to the complaint . . . in this case in at least 30 

Case 3:21-cv-00066-TKW-HTC Document 5 Filed 01/14/21 Page 5 of 8
Page 6 of 8

Case No. 3:21cv66-TKW-HTC

other district courts around the country”); Young v. Rutledge, 4:20-cv-01185-BRW,

ECF Doc. 5 (E.D. Ark. Oct. 7, 2020) (dismissing similar complaint for lack of 

standing and as “nonsensical”). As the district court in Young v. Cownie, 4:20-cv338-JAJ-CFB, ECF Doc. 5 (S.D. Iowa Nov. 24, 2020), explained in denying 

Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the action:

This is not the only place that plaintiff has attempted to sue public 

officials for the imposition of a mask requirement. The court honors 

the many United States district judges who have painstakingly 

demonstrated the plaintiff’s lack of standing, her failure to state a claim 

upon which relief can be granted and, of course, her failure to allege 

facts entitling her to preliminary injunctive relief. This court adopts the

well-reasoned decision from the Southern District of New York 

in Young v. James, 2020 WL 6572798 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 26, 2020) to 

dismiss this case and deny in forma pauperis status here and on appeal.

Given these prior orders, the Court finds Plaintiff’s claims in this case to be 

malicious and frivolous.1

 Indeed, just two months ago, the Northern District of 

Georgia dismissed a similar complaint against the Mayor of the City of Atlanta as 

“frivolous.” Young v. Bottoms, 1:20-cv-4431-TWT, ECF Doc. 7 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 3, 

2020). 

II. MOTION FOR EMAIL FILING

Plaintiff requests “an order granting permission to email documents to the 

clerk’s office for filing in this case and to receive electronic notifications of case 

1 Given Plaintiff’s lack of standing, even if Plaintiff were to pay the requisite filing fee, Plaintiff 

should be aware that her claims would likely be subject to a report and recommendation for

dismissal.

Case 3:21-cv-00066-TKW-HTC Document 5 Filed 01/14/21 Page 6 of 8
Page 7 of 8

Case No. 3:21cv66-TKW-HTC

activity.” ECF Doc. 3 at 1. Plaintiff claims she understands various requirements 

concerning the Court’s CM/ECF system. Id. at 2–3. Plaintiff’s motion is denied.

First, pro se plaintiffs are generally not permitted access to CM/ECF in this 

District. See, e.g., Universal Life Church Monastery Storehouse, Inc. v. Universal 

Life Church World Headquarters, Inc., 2013 WL 12177847, at *2 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 

22, 2013) (“Pro se litigants are not permitted to file documents electronically in the 

Northern District of Florida.”); Barkley v. Gadsden County Schools, 2008 WL 

11340025, at *2 n.1 (N.D. Fla. Apr. 23, 2008) (“While attorneys may file documents 

electronically on the court’s electronic document, pro se parties are not able to do 

so.”).

Second, although the Court has discretion to permit pro se parties to file 

documents electronically in certain circumstances, see N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 5.4(A)(3)), 

Plaintiff has not provided good cause for the undersigned to exercise that discretion. 

See McMahon v. Cleveland Clinic Found. Police Dep’t, 455 F. App’x 874, 878 (11th 

Cir. 2011) (unpublished decision) (affirming district court’s denial of pro se

plaintiff’s access to CM/ECF to receive electronic notifications because the plaintiff 

did not demonstrate good cause). For instance, Plaintiff has not shown how she

would be prejudiced by not being allowed to electronically file documents, why 

electronic filing is necessary, or how her circumstances differ from other pro se

Case 3:21-cv-00066-TKW-HTC Document 5 Filed 01/14/21 Page 7 of 8
Page 8 of 8

Case No. 3:21cv66-TKW-HTC

plaintiffs. Indeed, Plaintiff has not provided any reasoning for why she should be 

allowed to submit her filings electronically, rather than by mail. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Doc. 2) is 

DENIED. 

2. Within seven (7) days from the date of this order, Plaintiff shall pay the 

$402 filing fee if Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action.

3. Plaintiff’s motion for email filing (ECF Doc. 3) is DENIED.

4. Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order as instructed may result in 

a recommendation that this case be dismissed due to her failure to prosecute or 

failure to comply with an order of the Court.

DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of January, 2021.

/s/ Hope Thai Cannon

HOPE THAI CANNON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:21-cv-00066-TKW-HTC Document 5 Filed 01/14/21 Page 8 of 8