UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DAVID M. HUEBLER,

Plaintiff, CASE NO. 09-11817 

v. DISTRICT JUDGE VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES E. BINDER

COMMISSIONER OF 

SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant. 

_____________________________/

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON

PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

(Doc. 2)

I. RECOMMENDATION

 For the reasons set forth below, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Application to

Proceed In Forma Pauperis be DENIED.

II. REPORT

Pending, pursuant to an Order of Reference for general case management from United

States District Judge Victoria A. Roberts issued May 12, 2009 (Doc. 3), is Plaintiff’s Application

to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Doc. 2.) This Report and Recommendation is filed pursuant to

Woods v. Dahlberg, 894 F.2d 187 (6th Cir. 1990) (holding that magistrate judges lack authority

to deny pauper status).

Since 1892, federal courts have possessed statutory power under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to

authorize commencement of civil actions in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Section 1915 is intended to

insure that indigent persons have equal access to the judicial system by allowing them to proceed

2:09-cv-11817-VAR-LJM Doc # 4 Filed 05/14/09 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 7
2

without having to advance the fees and costs associated with litigation. Flint v. Haynes, 651 F.2d

970, 972 (4th Cir. 1981). An indigent litigant seeking to proceed IFP must file an affidavit that

includes a statement of that person’s assets and his inability to pay fees. See 28 U.S.C. §

1915(a)(1). If the court grants the motion to proceed IFP, the litigant is excused from prepayment

of filing fees. Id. A court may also direct the United States to pay expenses associated with

printing records and transcripts, id. § 1915(c), and will order court officers to carry out duties

associated with service of process. Id. § 1915(d).

In Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours, Inc., 335 U.S. 331, 69 S. Ct. 85, 93 L. Ed. 43 (1948),

the United States Supreme Court held that one need not be absolutely destitute to enjoy the benefit

of proceeding IFP. See also Lee v. McDonald’s Corp., 231 F.3d 456, 458 (8th Cir. 2000). An

affidavit to proceed IFP is sufficient if it states that one cannot, because of his or her poverty,

afford to pay for costs of litigation and still provide herself and her family the necessities of life.

Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339. Proceeding IFP “is a privilege, not a right, and permission to so proceed

is committed to the sound discretion of the court.” Camp v. Oliver, 798 F.2d 434, 437 (11th Cir.

1986). 

In determining IFP eligibility, “courts will generally look to whether the persons are

employed, the person’s annual salary, and any other property or assets the person may possess.”

Schneller v. Prospect Park Nursing and Rehab. Ctr., No. 06-545, 2006 WL 1030284, at *1 (E.D.

Pa. Apr. 18, 2006). Assets include equity in real estate and automobiles. United States v. Valdez,

300 F. Supp. 2d 82, 84 (D.D.C. 2004) (denying IFP status where plaintiff had $80,000 of equity

in real estate and automobiles valued at a total of $30,000). In addition, the ability to cover the

costs of litigation and the necessities of life “has consistently depended in part on [the] litigant’s

actual ability to get funds from a spouse, a parent, and adult sibling or other next friend.” Caldwell

2:09-cv-11817-VAR-LJM Doc # 4 Filed 05/14/09 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 8
3

v. Providence Family Physician (Tillman’s Corner) Seton Medical Management, 2005 WL

1027287, at *2 (S.D. Ala. Apr. 29, 2005) (unpublished). See also Friedman v. City of New York,

195 F. Supp. 2d 534, 537 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).

In this case, Plaintiff indicates that he has approximately $5,000 in a checking or savings

account and that he owns his home valued at $45,000 and a truck valued at $1,000. (Doc. 2 at 2.)

Plaintiff also indicates that he has no dependents. In light of these assets, I suggest that Plaintiff

possesses the financial ability to cover the costs of litigation without undue financial hardship. 

Financial ability has been found in circumstances less favorable than those of the instant

case. See, e.g., Brown v. Dinwiddle, 280 Fed. App’x 713, 715-16 (10th Cir. 2008) (denying IFP

application where plaintiff had $850 in his savings account and could thus afford the $455 filing

fee for his appeal); Ali v. Cuyler, 547 F. Supp. 129, 130 (E.D. Pa. 1982) (denying IFP application

where the plaintiff had $450 in his savings account because that amount was “more than sufficient

to allow the plaintiff to pay the filing fee in this action”); Bloom v. San Diego County Offices of

Health and Human Services, No. 07-CV-1692W(RBB), 2007 WL 2782562 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 25,

2007) (denying IFP status where plaintiff had no dependents and owned a vehicle outright); Daniel

v. United States of America, No. 05-2344-B/P, 2006 WL 626244 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 9, 2006)

(denying IFP status where plaintiff’s inmate account had a balance of $587.47).

In light of the above facts and case law, I suggest that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that,

because of his poverty, he is unable to pay for the costs of his litigation and still provide for

himself. Accordingly, I suggest that Plaintiff’s application be denied because his access to the

court is not blocked by her financial condition, but rather, he is properly in the position of having

to weigh the financial constraints posed by pursuing his complaint against the merits of his claims.

2:09-cv-11817-VAR-LJM Doc # 4 Filed 05/14/09 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 9
4

III. REVIEW

The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Report and Recommendation

within ten (10) days of service of a copy hereof as provided for in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure

to file specific objections constitutes a waiver of any further right of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474

U.S. 140, 106 S. Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed. 2d 435 (1985); Howard v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,

932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). The parties

are advised that making some objections, but failing to raise others, will not preserve all the

objections a party may have to this Report and Recommendation. Willis v. Sec’y of Health &

Human Servs., 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed’n of Teachers Local 231,

829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987). Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 72.1(d)(2), a copy of any

objections is to be served upon this Magistrate Judge. 

 s/ Charles` E Binder 

CHARLES E. BINDER 

Dated: May 14, 2009 United States Magistrate Judge

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that this Report and Recommendation was electronically filed this date and

electronically served upon counsel of record via the Court’s ECF system.

Date: May 14, 2009 By s/Patricia T. Morris 

Law Clerk to Magistrate Judge Binder

2:09-cv-11817-VAR-LJM Doc # 4 Filed 05/14/09 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 10