IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

KEVIN J. DAVIS, § 

 § 

Plaintiff, § 

§ 

V. § No. 3:22-cv-1337-L-BN 

§ 

HUBGROUP, § 

§ 

Defendant. § 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Plaintiff Kevin J. Davis filed a pro se complaint appearing to allege a claim in 

the context of employment that consists of a Determination and Notice of Rights 

issued by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on March 24, 2022 

and a Civil Cover Sheet indicating a cause of “falsely accused of stealing/terminated 

for retaliation.” Dkt. No. 3. Because Davis also moved for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis (IFP), United States District Judge Sam A. Lindsay referred Davis’s lawsuit 

to the undersigned United States magistrate judge for pretrial management under 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference. 

The IFP statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, “was designed to ensure that litigants would 

not be deprived of meaningful access to the federal judicial system due to their 

financial circumstances.” Bucklew v. St. Clair, No. 3:18-cv-2117-N-BH, 2019 WL 

2250886, at *2 (N.D. Tex. May 15, 2019) (citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 

(1989)), rec. accepted, 2019 WL 2249718 (N.D. Tex. May 24, 2019). But, to gain access, 

“[a] litigant seeking IFP status must submit an affidavit identifying all assets he 

Case 3:22-cv-01337-L-BN Document 8 Filed 06/27/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 30
- 2 - 

possesses, as well as a statement that he is unable to pay the necessary fees of 

bringing a federal civil action.” Smith-Garcia v. Harrison Cnty., 776 F. App’x 226, 227 

(5th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1)). 

The Court must then examine the financial condition of the applicant in order 

to determine whether the payment of fees would “cause undue financial hardship.” 

Prows v. Kastner, 842 F.2d 138, 140 (5th Cir. 1988). “This entails a review of other 

demands on individual [applicants’] financial resources, including whether the 

expenses are discretionary or mandatory.” Id. And, while “[t]he term ‘undue financial 

hardship’ is not defined and, therefore, is a flexible concept[,] ... a pragmatic rule of 

thumb contemplates that undue financial hardship results when prepayment of fees 

or costs would result in the applicant’s inability to pay for the ‘necessities of life.’” 

Walker v. Univ. of Tex. Med. Branch, No. 1:08-CV-417, 2008 WL 4873733, at *1 (E.D. 

Tex. Oct. 30, 2008) (citing Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 

(1948)); see also Williams v. Louisiana, Civ. A. No. 14-00154-BAJ-EWD, 2017 WL 

3124332, at *1 (M.D. La. Apr. 14, 2017) (noting that the applicable standard “requires 

a showing of more than an inconvenience to the applicant” (citations omitted)). 

“[W]hether the litigant is ‘unable to pay’ the costs [associated with initiating a 

lawsuit also] ... depend[s] in part on [the] litigant’s actual ability to get funds from a 

spouse, a parent, an adult sibling, or other next friend.” Williams v. Spencer, 455 F. 

Supp. 205, 209 (D. Md. 1978); see Fridman v. City of New York, 195 F. Supp. 2d 534, 

537 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (“In assessing an application to proceed in forma pauperis, a 

court may consider the resources that the applicant has or can get from those who 

Case 3:22-cv-01337-L-BN Document 8 Filed 06/27/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 31
- 3 - 

ordinarily provide the applicant with the necessities of life, such as from a spouse, 

parent, adult sibling or other next friend.” (citations and internal quotation marks 

omitted)); accord Pisano v. Astrue, No. 11-30269-KPN, 2012 WL 79188, at *2 (D. 

Mass. Jan. 10, 2012) (collecting cases). 

And a financial affidavit that is either “incomplete” or “internally inconsistent” 

is insufficient to find that a movant qualifies for leave to proceed IFP. Muhammad v. 

La. Attorney Disciplinary Bd., Civ. A. No. 09-3431, 2009 WL 3150041, at *2 (E.D. La. 

Sept. 25, 2009) (citing Watson v. Ault, 525 F.2d 886, 891 (5th Cir. 1976) (“[W]here the 

in forma pauperis affidavit is sufficient on its face to demonstrate economic eligibility, 

the court should first docket the case and then proceed to the question ... of whether 

the asserted claim is frivolous or malicious.”); collecting cases). 

The financial information Davis provides in his IFP motion indicates that, 

while his household has been reduced to a single income, his wife’s monthly income 

is $7,200, see Dkt. No. 4 at 1, which exceeds their reported monthly household 

expenses of $5,900, see id. at 4-5. He also reports $1,200 in a checking account. See 

id. at 2. So the undersigned cannot find that requiring Davis to pay the filing fee will 

“cause undue financial hardship” consistent with the legal standards set out above. 

And the Court should deny his IFP motion. 

Recommendation

The Court should deny Plaintiff Kevin J. Davis leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, see Dkt. No. 4, and order that he pay the $402 filing fee within 21 days of 

any order accepting or adopting this recommendation (or within some other 

Case 3:22-cv-01337-L-BN Document 8 Filed 06/27/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 32
- 4 - 

reasonable time to be set by the Court), and, if he fails to do so, the Court should 

dismiss this action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) 

without further notice. 

A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on 

all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these 

findings, conclusions, 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). In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or 

recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and 

specify the place in the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation 

where 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 Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996). 

DATED: June 27, 2022 

 _________________________________________ 

 DAVID L. HORAN 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-01337-L-BN Document 8 Filed 06/27/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 33