1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

MICHAEL DARNELL JONES, §

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § No. 3:22-cv-01875-C (BT)

§

ESTHER GORMAN, et al., §

 Defendants. § 

MICHAEL DARNELL JONES, §

Plaintiff, §

§

v. §

§ No. 3:22-cv-01907-X (BT)

CODE ENFORCEMENT BUSINESS, §

et al., §

 Defendants. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff Michael Darnell Jones seeks leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis in two pro se civil actions. For the reasons stated, the Court should 

deny Jones’s motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss 

both cases unless he pays the $402.00 filing fee in each case by October 3, 

2022. (Case No. 3:22-cv-01875-C -BT, ECF No. 4; Case No. 3:22-cv-01907-

X-BT, ECF No. 4.) 

I.

The procedure for a party to bring a lawsuit in forma pauperis is set 

forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Section 1915 provides that:

Case 3:22-cv-01875-C-BT Document 7 Filed 09/02/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 21
2

[A]ny 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 

prisoner possesses 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) (emphasis added). The goal of § 1915(a) is to allow 

access to federal courts for those plaintiffs who lack the financial resources 

to pay any part of the statutory filing costs. Prows v. Kastner, 842 F.2d 138, 

140 (5th Cir. 1988). The Court must examine the financial condition of the 

applicant to determine whether the payment of fees would “cause undue 

financial hardship.” Id. “This entails a review of other demands on 

individual plaintiffs’ financial resources, including whether the expenses are 

discretionary or mandatory.” Id. The Court may require a plaintiff to 

complete a financial affidavit in support of a motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis. Nottingham v. Warden, Bill Clements Unit, 837 F.3d 438, 439-40 

(5th Cir. 2016).

In both cases, Jones filed a financial affidavit in support of his motion 

stating that for the last twelve months his average monthly income has been 

$1,236.00 from Social Security and $3,320.00 from the Veterans Affairs. 

(Case No. 3:22-cv-01875-C-BT, ECF No. 4 at 2; Case No. 3:22-cv-01907-XBT, ECF No. 4 at 2.) He owns 1994 and 1997 Ford vans. (Case No. 3:22-cvCase 3:22-cv-01875-C-BT Document 7 Filed 09/02/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 22
3

01875-C-BT, ECF No. 4 at 3; Case No. 3:22-cv-01907-X-BT, ECF No. 4 at 3.) 

Jones also owns a home in Cedar Hill, Texas, and the home is valued at 

$400,000. (Case No. 3:22-cv-01875-C-BT, ECF No. 4 at 3; Case No. 3:22-

cv-01907-X-BT, ECF No. 4 at 3.) Jones does not have any dependents under 

the age of eighteen that rely on him for support. (Case No. 3:22-cv-01875-CBT, ECF No. 4 at 3; Case No. 3:22-cv-01907-X-BT, ECF No. 4 at 3.) In view 

of all the evidence, the Court finds that paying the $402.00 filing fee in each 

case would not “cause an undue financial hardship.” See Prows, 842 F.2d at 

140. 

II.

The Court should DENY Jones’s motions for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis in Case Numbers 3:22-cv-01875-C (BT) and 3:22-cv-01907-X (BT) 

and dismiss each case without prejudice unless Jones pays the $402.00 

filing fee in each case by October 3, 2022.

Signed September 2, 2022. 

____________________________

REBECCA RUTHERFORD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-01875-C-BT Document 7 Filed 09/02/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 23
4

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT

A copy of this report and recommendation shall 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). 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 report 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 

Services Automobile Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996), modified by 

statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file 

objections to 14 days).

Case 3:22-cv-01875-C-BT Document 7 Filed 09/02/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 24