UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

MICHAEL MOATES,

Plaintiff, 

v. No. 4:22-cv-0262-P

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND 

REGULATION ET AL.,

Defendants.

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On April 5, 2022, Plaintiff Michael Moates filed a Motion for Leave 

to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (“Motion”). ECF No. 2. The Motion states

that Moates currently receives $2,600 in monthly income. Id. Because

Moates’s yearly income—based on this reported monthly income—is

significantly higher than the poverty level, the United States Magistrate 

Judge recommended that the Court deny the Motion. Id. 

In response, Moates filed a timely Objection arguing that “the 

Magistrate Judge did not consider all of the facts or circumstances and 

that working for one month after being unemployed for the last year 

does not give the Plaintiff the resources needed to proceed in this action.”

ECF No. 7. Having considered the Objection and applicable law, the 

Court concludes that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate 

Judge are correct. 

Moates’s focus on his previous unemployment is misplaced. For the 

purposes of proceeding in forma pauperis, the “relevant inquiry is the 

state of the [individual’s] finances at the time of filing.” Miller v. Hardy, 

497 F. App’x 618, 620 (7th Cir. 2012); see also Martinez v. Kristi 

Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305, 1307 (11th Cir. 2004) (“When considering 

a motion filed pursuant to § 1915(a), the only determination to be made 

Case 4:22-cv-00262-P Document 10 Filed 04/18/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 133
2

by the court . . . is whether the statements in the affidavit satisfy the 

requirement of poverty.”).

Here, Moates’s Motion states that he has an income of $2,600 a 

month. This equates to more than $31,000 in annual income, which is 

significantly higher than the applicable poverty guideline for a family of 

one.1 Thus, because Moates’s income at the time of filing is higher than 

the applicable poverty guideline, the Court concludes that Moates has 

sufficient resources available to pay the applicable fees. 

Having conducted a de novo review—in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)—of the Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and 

Recommendation, the undersigned District Judge agrees with the 

Magistrate Judge. The Court therefore accepts them as the Findings 

and Conclusions of the Court. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that 

Plaintiff Michael Moates’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma 

Pauperis (ECF No. 2) should be, and is hereby, DENIED. 

It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff pay to the Clerk of the Court 

the filing and administrative fees of $4022 on or before April 21, 2022. 

Failure of Plaintiff to comply will result in the dismissal of this case 

without prejudice without further notice. 

SO ORDERED on this 18th day of April, 2022.

1See HHS Poverty Guidelines for 2022, OFF. OF THE ASSISTANT SEC’Y FOR PLAN. &

EVALUATION (Jan. 12, 2022), https://aspe.hhs.gov/topics/poverty-economic -

mobility/poverty-guidelines. 

2In addition to the filing fee of $350, the District Court Miscellaneous Fee Schedule 

requires payment of an administrative fee for filing a civil action in district court of 

$52. See 28 U.S.C.§ 1914(a); District Court Miscellaneous Fee Schedule, n.14. 

Mark T. Pittman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:22-cv-00262-P Document 10 Filed 04/18/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 134