ORDER − Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

KAZIM OLADOTUN OYENUGA,

Plaintiff,

v. 

OMOYELE SOWORE, ET AL.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:23-CV-00389-ALMCAN

ORDER

Pending before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Kazim Oladotun Oyenuga’s (“Plaintiff”) 

Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [Dkt. 4]. The statute authorizing the Court to grant leave 

for a litigant to proceed in forma pauperis states:

Subject to subsection (b), any 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 [person] 

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). “The mere execution of an affidavit of indigence does not automatically 

entitle a litigant to proceed in forma pauperis. Rather, the court enjoys limited discretion to grant 

or deny a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis based upon the financial statement set 

forth within the applicant’s affidavit.” Heath v. I.R.S., No. 3-02-CV-1518-H, 2002 WL 31086069, 

at *1 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 16, 2002) (citing Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., Inc., 

335 U.S. 331, 337 (1948); Green v. Estelle, 649 F.2d 298, 302 (5th Cir. Unit A June 1981); 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)). A plaintiff who wishes to proceed in forma pauperis must file an affidavit 

attesting to her or her indigence. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). “The affidavit is sufficient if it states 

that, due to poverty, plaintiff cannot afford to pay the costs of legal representation and still provide 

Case 4:23-cv-00389-ALM-AGD Document 5 Filed 05/03/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 16
ORDER − Page 2

for [himself] and [his] dependents.” Bright v. Hickman, 96 F. Supp. 2d 572, 575 (E.D. Tex. 2000) 

(citing Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339; Weber v. Holiday Inn, 42 F. Supp. 2d 693, 697 (E.D. Tex. 1999)). 

“While plaintiff does not need to be absolutely destitute to qualify for in forma pauperis status, 

such benefit is allowed only when plaintiff cannot give such costs and remain able to provide for 

[herself] and [her] dependents.” Id. (citations omitted).

Plaintiff avers that he is unable to pay the fees at this time [Dkt. 4 at 1]. However, Plaintiff

is self-employed and has take-home wages of approximately $3,000 per month and business 

income for 2022 was about $50,000 [Dkt. 4 at 2-3]. Plaintiff also indicates that his monthly 

expenses do not exceed his monthly income, and that Plaintiff’s “consulting business should begin 

to thrive” [Dkt. 4 at 4-6]. Based on the information provided, at present, Plaintiff has the funds to 

pay the $402.00 filing fee. Considering all the information supplied, the Court finds that Plaintiff 

is obligated to pay the filing fee for this civil action, and his Motion should be denied. 

Accordingly, 

It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff Kazim Oladotun Oyenuga’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion 

to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [Dkt. 4] is DENIED. Plaintiff shall submit the full filing fee of 

$402.00 to the Clerk of Court within thirty days of this Order. Failure to pay the filing fee 

within thirty days may result in a dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Case 4:23-cv-00389-ALM-AGD Document 5 Filed 05/03/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 17