IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

 

WILTON IRVON LOMBARD, JR., §

§

Plaintiff, §

 §

v. § No. 4:22-cv-00784-O-BP

 §

§

NORTH RICHLAND HILLS POLICE §

DEPARTMENT, et al., §

 §

Defendants. §

 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court is the Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) filed 

on September 2, 2022, by Plaintiff Wilton Irvon Lombard, Jr., (“Lombard”). This case was referred 

to the undersigned pursuant to Special Order No. 3 the same day. Denial of a motion for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) is a dispositive order to which the undersigned may issue a 

recommendation to United States District Judge Reed O’Connor pursuant to the Court’s 

Miscellaneous Order No. 6.

After considering the pleadings and applicable legal authorities, the undersigned 

RECOMMENDS that Judge O’Connor DENY Lombard’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma 

Pauperis (ECF No. 2) and DISMISS the case without prejudice. 

I. BACKGROUND

Lombard initially filed his Complaint on September 22, 2022, seeking relief for alleged 

civil rights violations. ECF No. 1. Together with this Complaint, Lombard filed a Motion for Leave 

to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) in which he declared that he is unable to pay the costs 

Case 4:22-cv-00784-O Document 7 Filed 10/06/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 40
2

of the proceedings. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, he requested that the Court not require him to 

prepay costs.

By Order entered on September 9, 2022, the Court found that Lombard had the financial 

ability to pay the filing and administrative fees in this case without “suffering undue hardship.” 

ECF No. 5. Therefore, the Court ordered Lombard to pay the filing fee within fourteen days of the 

Court’s Order, and informed Lombard that his failure to do so would result in the case being subject 

to dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id.

at 2. To date, Lombard has failed to pay the required fees. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“There is no absolute right to be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in civil matters; 

rather it is a privilege extended to those unable to pay filing fees when the action is not frivolous 

or malicious.” Startti v. United States, 415 F.2d 1115, 1116 (5th Cir. 1969) (citing 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915). Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the statute governing proceedings in forma pauperis, “is 

intended to provide access to federal courts for 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). “At 

the same time, a district court may order users of the courts to pay a portion of the filing fees when 

they are financially able to do so.” Id. (citing Williams v. Estelle, 681 F.2d 946 (5th Cir. 1982)). 

“To determine whether a particular order causes undue financial hardship, a court must examine 

the financial condition of the in forma pauperis applicant. This entails a review of other demands 

on individual plaintiffs’ financial resources, including whether the expenses are discretionary or 

mandatory.” Prows, 842 F.2d at 140. Ultimately, the decision whether to grant a request to proceed 

in forma pauperis is within the discretion of the court. Williams, 681 F.2d at 947 (citing Green v. 

Estelle, 649 F.2d 298, 302 (5th Cir. 1981)); Woodards v. Traurig, No. 3:11-CV-2678-L-BH, 2011 

Case 4:22-cv-00784-O Document 7 Filed 10/06/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 41
3

WL 6934966, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 22, 2011), rec. adopted, No. 3:11-CV-2678-L-BH, 2011 WL 

6934965 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 30, 2011).

III. ANALYSIS

In his financial affidavit, Lombard declares that he has an average monthly income 

consisting of employment, self-employment, disability, and gifts of $2,425 and monthly expenses 

of $2,425. ECF No. 2, at 1-2, 5. He owns a home, 2021 model automobile, and other assets, totaling 

$56,000. Id. at 3. He lists no dependents. Id. Lombard’s financial affidavit shows that he “will not 

be barred from the federal courts due to [his] lack of financial resources.” Williams v. U.S. Postal 

Serv., No. 3:10-CV-435-WHB-LRA, 2010 WL 3828922, at *1 (S.D. Miss. Aug. 10, 2010), rec.

adopted, No. 3:10-CV-435-WHB-LRA, 2010 WL 3827944 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 24, 2010). After 

consideration of Lombard’s sworn affidavit and financial circumstances, the undersigned finds 

that Lombard has not demonstrated that he lacks the financial ability to pay the costs of the 

proceeding without suffering undue hardship. See Webster v. Chertoff, No. 3:06-CV-0438-M, 

2006 WL 757875, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 20, 2006) (quoting Prows, 842 F.2d at 140). 

IV. CONCLUSION

Because Lombard has the financial ability to pay the costs of the proceeding without 

suffering undue hardship, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Judge O’Connor DENY

Lombard’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) and DISMISS the case

without prejudice unless Lombard pays to the Clerk of the Court the filing and administrative fees 

of $402.00 within seven (7) days after the date of his Order or such other time as Judge O’Connor 

may set.

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, 

Case 4:22-cv-00784-O Document 7 Filed 10/06/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 42
4

and recommendation must file specific written objections within fourteen days after being served 

with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). To be specific, an objection must 

identify the particular 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) (en banc).

SIGNED on October 6, 2022. 

______________________________________

Hal R. Ray, Jr.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:22-cv-00784-O Document 7 Filed 10/06/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 43