Source: http://al.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20170802_0000496.SAL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-09-22 16:57:55
Document Index: 176736903

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1915', '§ 636', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1746']

This action is before the Court on the motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs, or in forma pauperis (“IFP”), under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (Doc. 2) filed by Plaintiff KIMBERLY D. WILLIAMS (“the Plaintiff”). The motion has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for appropriate action in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(a). See S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(b); (8/1/2017 electronic reference).
“The in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, ensures that indigent persons will have equal access to the judicial system.” Attwood v. Singletary, 105 F.3d 610, 612-613 (11th Cir. 1997) (citing Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 446 (1962)). However, “[t]here is no question that proceeding in forma pauperis is a privilege, not a right, ” Camp v. Oliver, 798 F.2d 434, 437 (11th Cir. 1986), [1] and “should not be a broad highway into the federal courts.” Phillips v. Mashburn, 746 F.2d 782, 785 (11th Cir. 1984) (per curiam). Nevertheless, “while a trial court has broad discretion in denying an application to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915, it must not act arbitrarily and it may not deny the application on erroneous grounds.” Pace v. Evans, 709 F.2d 1428, 1429 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam) (citing Flowers v. Turbine Support Div., 507 F.2d 1242, 1244 (5th Cir.1975)); see also Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305, 1306-07 (11th Cir.2004) (per curiam) (“[A] trial court has wide discretion in denying an application to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 1915…However, in denying such applications a court must not act arbitrarily. Nor may it deny the application on erroneous grounds.” (quotation omitted)).
Per the representations in the Plaintiff's IFP motion (Doc. 2), which is executed in substantial compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and thus constitutes an unsworn declaration made under penalty of perjury, she is married and has no dependents. She has been unemployed since 2013, and her spouse is also unemployed. Neither she nor her spouse receives welfare aid, but she receives $36.00 a month in food stamps. Her spouse receives $1, 608 a month in Social Security benefits. Her spouse owns a house with an estimated value of $50, 000 and a current mortgage of $58, 000. She has two automobiles registered in her name: a 2007 model compact hatchback, which is fully paid for and has an estimated value of $2, 646; and a 1999 model truck with an estimated value of $1, 936 but for which she owes $3, 7000. She reports no other major assets. She reports $0 total cash in banks, savings, etc., and reports $0 in monies received or held for her during the last twelve months. She reports almost $2, 000 in various financial debts and obligations. Her reported monthly expenses are $500 for the house mortgage, $40 on the various reported debts, and $66 for medical insurance.
Upon consideration, the undersigned finds that the information in the Plaintiff's present motion (Doc. 2) is insufficient to make an informed IFP determination. More specifically, the Plaintiff reports only $606 in monthly expenses, which leaves $1, 002 a month from her spouse's Social Security benefits, along with the $36 per month in food stamps she receives. However, it appears possible that the Plaintiff may not have reported all of her monthly expenses (e.g., food, utilities, car payment).
Accordingly, no later than Wednesday, August 23, 2017, the Plaintiff must either 1) pay the full $400 filing fee, or 2) file an amended IFP motion or sworn supplement to the present IFP motion providing any additional information the Plaintiff feels is necessary to address the above-stated concerns and to otherwise demonstrate entitlement to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. The failure to comply with this directive, or the failure to file an amended IFP motion or supplement that sufficiently satisfies the requirement of poverty, will result in entry of a recommendation to the Court that the Plaintiff be denied leave to proceed IFP in this action, and that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and obey the Court's orders unless the Plaintiff pays the filing fee within the time period for objections to the recommendation. See Betty K Agencies, Ltd. v. M/V MONADA, 432 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2005) (holding that a district court may dismiss an action for failure to prosecute and obey a court order under both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and the court's inherent power to manage its docket); Woods v. Dahlberg, 894 F.2d 187, 187 (6th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (denial of IFP motion is “the functional equivalent of an involuntary dismissal”).