IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

BRAYLON RAY COULTER, §

#202200383, §

PLAINTIFF, §

§

V. § CASE NO. 3:22-CV-1110-C-BK

§

NFN HALE. §

 DEFENDANT. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order 3, this pro se case was referred to the 

United States Magistrate Judge for pretrial management, including the issuance of findings and a 

recommended disposition where appropriate. Plaintiff Braylon Ray Coulter, a Texas prisoner, 

filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit on May 19, 2022. Doc. 3. He filed an amended complaint in 

response to a notice of deficiency on June 22, 2022. Doc. 6. He also filed a motion to proceed 

in forma pauperis with the amended complaint. Doc. 7. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis should be DENIED and his complaint should be 

DISMISSED unless, within twenty-one (21) days of the Court accepting this recommendation, 

he pays the filing and administrative fees or submits a complete in forma pauperis application 

and certificate of trust account.

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a civil rights complaint. Doc. 3. But he did not 

move to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the filing fee. So, the Court issued a notice of 

deficiency directing him to, in addition to filing an amended complaint on the court’s standard 

Case 3:22-cv-01110-C-BK Document 8 Filed 08/04/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 24
2

form, either pay filing and administrative fees of $402.00 or file an application to proceed in 

forma pauperis on the court-approved form with the required certificate of inmate trust account. 

Doc. 5. 

Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint. Doc. 7. He also filed a motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis and certificate of inmate trust account, however, both documents are 

missing information. See Doc. 7. Plaintiff claims that within the last year, he has received 

money from gifts or inheritance, family or friends, and other sources. Doc. 7 at 1. But, when 

asked to describe the source of those funds and the amount of money he received from them in 

the last year, Plaintiff stated “not applicable, invasion/right of privacy.” Doc. 7 at 1. He 

submitted a certificate of inmate trust account (Doc. 7 at 3), but it is not signed by an authorized 

officer at Plaintiff’s place of confinement. Instead, Plaintiff indicates that he does not consent to 

certification by an officer at his institution of confinement. See Doc. 7 at 3. So, although 

Plaintiff indicates that he has only $0.07 in his account, this figure is not properly corroborated. 

See Doc. 7 at 3. Plaintiff also does not consent to his institution of confinement withdrawing and 

forwarding to the Court any initial filing fee or appeal fee and any subsequent installments 

ordered by a Court under the in forma pauperis provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Doc. 7 at 3. 

II. LAW AND ANALYSIS 

Whether to permit an applicant to proceed in forma pauperis is within the sound 

discretion of the Court. Prows v. Kastner, 842 F.2d 138, 140 (5th Cir. 1988); 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(a). Courts should make the assessment of financial ability after considering whether 

payment of the filing fee will result in the plaintiff “suffering undue financial hardship.” Prows, 

Case 3:22-cv-01110-C-BK Document 8 Filed 08/04/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 25
3

842 F.2d at 140. Here, Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application does not provide sufficient 

information to allow the Court to make that determination. 

As described above, Plaintiff says that he received money in the last year from gifts or 

inheritance, family or friends, and other sources, but he refuses to provide any information about 

those funds. Doc. 7 at 1. Also, Plaintiff failed to provide a completed certificate of inmate trust 

account. But Plaintiff, as a prisoner, is subject to the requirement that he file a certified copy of 

the inmate trust account along with a completed in forma pauperis application. See 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(a)(2); see also, e.g, Reed v. Morales, No. C.A.C. 06 79, 2006 WL 582040, at *1 (S.D. Tex. 

Mar. 6, 2006) (denying prisoner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis filed without certification 

of inmate trust account).1

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is defective and should 

be denied. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 7) 

should be DENIED. The Court should inform Plaintiff that the complaint will be DISMISSED

without further notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) unless Plaintiff pays the filing 

1 Plaintiff also indicated that he did not consent to his institution of incarceration withdrawing 

and forwarding to the Court an initial partial filing fee and subsequent installments under the in 

forma pauperis provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. See Doc. 7 at 3. However, to extent that 

Plaintiff wishes to proceed in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) requires that a prisoner 

pay the full amount of the filing fee pursuant to an initial partial fee and then installment 

payments after that until the fee is paid. So, if he does not consent to his institution of 

confinement withdrawing payments in accordance with that section, he may not proceed in 

forma pauperis regardless of whether he submits a sufficient application to do so.

Case 3:22-cv-01110-C-BK Document 8 Filed 08/04/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 26
4

and administrative fees of $402.00 to the Clerk of Court or submits a completed in forma 

pauperis application and certificate of inmate trust account within 21 days of the Court’s order. 

SO RECOMMENDED on August 4, 2022.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation will be served on all parties in the manner provided by 

law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and recommendation must file specific 

written objections within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED.

R. CIV. P. 72(b). An objection must identify the finding or recommendation to which objection is 

made, the basis for the objection, and the place in the magistrate judge’s report and 

recommendation the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by 

reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific 

written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal 

conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon 

grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 

(5th Cir. 1996), modified by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections 

to 14 days).

Case 3:22-cv-01110-C-BK Document 8 Filed 08/04/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 27