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 Second Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 

10) filed on November 10, 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 Second Motion for Leave to Proceed 

In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 10) and DISMISS the case without prejudice unless Lombard pays 

the $402.00 filing fee on or before December 29, 2022, or such other date Judge O’Connor orders.

I. BACKGROUND

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

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

Case 4:22-cv-00784-O Document 13 Filed 12/07/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID 60
2

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

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. Instead, he filed a Second Motion for

Leave to proceed In Forma Pauperis. ECF No. 10. 

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 

Case 4:22-cv-00784-O Document 13 Filed 12/07/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID 61
3

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 

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 amended financial affidavit, Lombard declares that he has an average monthly 

income consisting of employment, self-employment, disability, and gifts of $2,440 and monthly 

expenses of $4,145, but mathematically is $4,095. ECF No. 11, 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. The 

Court also notes that Lombard paid the filing fee in another case pending in this Court in which he 

is the plaintiff, Lombard v. Schober, No. 4:22-cv-00785-O-BP. 

Lombard’s financial affidavit and payment of the filing fee in the other case show 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 amended 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 Second Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 10) and DISMISS

Case 4:22-cv-00784-O Document 13 Filed 12/07/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID 62
4

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

administrative fees of $402.00 on or before December 29, 2022, or such other date that Judge 

O’Connor may order.

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 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 December 7, 2022. 

______________________________________

Hal R. Ray, Jr.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:22-cv-00784-O Document 13 Filed 12/07/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID 63