Opinion
Civil Action 23-02849 (GC) (JBD)
03-28-2024
ARTHUR BORNSTEIN, Plaintiff, v. MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO., Defendant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM OPINION
GEORGETTE CASTNER, U.S.D.J.
This matter comes before the Court upon pro se Plaintiff Arthur Bornstein's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis together with Plaintiffs Complaint against Defendant McMaster-Carr Supply Company. (ECF Nos. 1, 1-4.) For the reasons stated herein, the Court will DENY Plaintiffs Application without prejudice and this matter will be administratively terminated.
“The in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, ‘is designed to ensure that indigent litigants have meaningful access to the federal courts.'” Deutsch v. United States, 61 F.3d 1080, 1084 (3d Cir. 1995) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989)). Whether to grant or deny an application to proceed in forma pauperis is committed to the discretion of the District Court. See, e.g, Cotto v. Tennis, 369 Fed.Appx. 321, 322 (3d Cir. 2010) (the Court of Appeals “review[s] the denial of leave to proceed IFP for abuse of discretion.”). It is the plaintiffs burden to prove his indigency in order to establish his eligibility to proceed in forma pauperis. See Pew v. Extraction Team Members, Civ. No. 16-91, 2016 WL 2958767, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 25, 2016), report and recommendation adopted, 2016 WL 2977303 (W.D. Pa. May 20, 2016) (“It is a plaintiffs burden to prove entitlement to IFP status ... by a preponderance of the evidence.”). “In determining whether a litigant is eligible for IFP status, the Court may consider [his] income, expenses, and assets, including the value of [his] property, such as cars and houses.” Yachimiak v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec., Civ. No. 17-7479, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50737, at *1 (D.N.J. Mar. 26, 2018). While the plaintiff does not need to prove that he is “absolutely destitute” to be eligible for the benefits of the in forma pauperis statute, Adkins v. E.I DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948), courts typically deny the IFP applications if paying the filing fees would not deprive plaintiff of the “necessities of life.” See, e.g, Shahin v. Sec 'y of Delaware, 532 Fed.Appx. 123, 124 (3d Cir. 2013) (finding that a showing of a minimal monthly income was sufficient to deny the plaintiff the privilege to proceed in forma pauperis because plaintiffs husband provided her with food, clothing, shelter, and other “necessities of life.”); Roberts v. Twp. of Horsham, Civ. No. 94-1821, 1994 WL 384934, at *1 (E.D. Pa. July 19, 1994) (denying plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis because plaintiff listed real estate valued at $130,000 as an asset even though she reportedly had no income).
After reviewing Plaintiffs Application, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not met his burden to show entitlement to the in forma pauperis status. Plaintiffs Application indicates that Plaintiff collects monthly payments of $1,630.90 due to his disability. (ECF No. 1-2 at 2.) His monthly expenses on housing, clothes, food, and medical necessities total $2,889.90. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff also receives government assistance that reduces his food and housing expenditures. (Id.) It is unclear whether the SNAP and the HUD housing assistance cover the disparity between his monthly income and expenses. Still, Plaintiff lists a checking account with the balance of $11,000 and a new car worth $20,000. (Id. at 2-3.) All told, Plaintiff has sufficient funds to pay the $402.00 filing fee without being deprived of the “necessities of life.” As a result, he may not be excused from funding his litigation.
Page numbers for record cites (i.e., “ECF Nos.”) refer to the page numbers stamped by the Court's e-filing system and not the internal pagination of the parties.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is DENIED without prejudice. An appropriate Order follows.