Opinion
Civil Action 4:23-CV-1252-P
12-19-2023
HENRY LOGAN, HANNAH LOGAN, Plaintiffs, v. PEGGY LOGAN, Defendant
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND NOTICE AND ORDER
JEFFREY L. CURETON UNITES STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
In this case, Plaintiffs have filed a civil case with a complaint and a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. .ECF Nos. 1,2. The case was referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Special Order No. 3. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge are as follows:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
A. NATURE OF THE CASE
This case is a new civil action.
B. PARTIES
Henry Logan and Hannah Logan are the plaintiffs. Compl.1, ECF No. 1. They list as defendant Peggy Logan. Id. at 1-2.
C. LEGAL ANALYSIS
Plaintiff Henry Logan filed a completed long-form application/motion to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 et. seq. ECF No. 2. That application/motion includes the income and asset information for plaintiff Henry Logan. Because the information provided by Henry Logan is sufficient to deny the in forma pauperis motion, the Court need not require Hannah Logan to compete and file a separate application.
Whether to permit or deny an applicant to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) is within the sound discretion of the Court. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Prows v. Kastner, 842 F.2d 138, 140 (5th Cir, 1988). Courts should make the determination of financial ability after considering whether payment of the filing fee will result in the plaintiff “suffering undue financial hardship.” Prows, 842 F.2d at 140. “This entails a review of other demands on individual plaintiffs' financial resources, including whether the expenses are discretionary or mandatory.” Id.
In Henry Logan's application, declared to be true under penalty of perjury, he declares that he earns $2,880 gross wages per month. ECF No. 2 at 1-2. Plaintiff has listed two dependents. Idat 3. The poverty guidelines for a family of three is $24,860. At a monthly income of $2,880, Plaintiffs annual income of $34,560 is far above the applicable poverty level. Thus, based on the information in the application, Plaintiffs have sufficient resources to pay the filing and administrative fees, and the undersigned will recommend denial of the in-forma-pauperis motion.
RECOMMENDATION
It is therefore RECOMMENDED that the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2] be DENIED by the district judge.
It is further RECOMMENDED that the district judge inform Plaintiffs that the complaint will be subject to dismissal without further notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), unless Plaintiffs pays to the clerk of Court the filing and administrative fees of $405.00 within seven (7) days after the district judge's order, NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT
In addition to the filing fee of $350, the District Court Miscellaneous Fee Schedule requires payment of an administrative fee for filing a civil action in district court of $55, See 28 U.S.C.§ 1914(a) and District Court Miscellaneous Fee Schedule, note 14.
A copy of this report and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), each party to this action has the right to serve and file specific written objections in the United States District Court to the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation within fourteen (14) days after the party has been served with a copy of this document. The United States District Judge need only make a de novo determination of those portions of the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation to which specific objection is timely made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure to file by the date stated above a specific written objection to a proposed factual finding or legal conclusion will bar a party, except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice, from attacking on appeal any such proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the United States District Judge. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the deadline to file objections from ten to fourteen days).
ORDER
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs are granted until January 2, 2023, 2023 to serve and file written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation.