Opinion
23-1208-KHV-BGS
10-03-2023
SAMUEL ROMAN, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY MILLER, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES
BROOKS G. SEVERSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
In conjunction with his federal court Complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff Samuel Roman (“Plaintiff”) filed a Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (“IFP motion,” Doc. 3, sealed). Attached as an exhibit thereto is his supporting financial affidavit (Doc. 3-1, sealed).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a federal court may authorize commencement of a civil action “without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that . . . the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” To succeed on an IFP motion, “the movant must show a financial inability to pay the required filing fees.” Lister v. Dep't of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005). Proceeding IFP “in a civil case is a privilege, not a right - fundamental or otherwise.” White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1233 (10th Cir. 1998). The decision to grant or deny IFP status under § 1915 lies within the District Court's sound discretion. Engberg v. Wyoming, 265 F.3d 1109, 1122 (10th Cir. 2001).
There is a liberal policy toward permitting proceedings in forma pauperis when necessary to ensure that the courts are available to all citizens, not just those who can afford to pay. See generally, Yellen v. Cooper, 828 F.2d 1471 (10th Cir. 1987). In construing the application and affidavit, courts generally seek to compare an applicant's monthly expenses to monthly income. See PatiUo v. N. Am. Van Lines, Inc., No. 02-2162, 2002 WL 1162684, at *1 (D.Kan. Apr. 15, 2002); Webb v. Cessna Aircraft, No. 00-2229, 2000 WL 1025575, at *1 (D.Kan. July 17, 2000) (denying motion because “Plaintiff is employed, with monthly income exceeding her monthly expenses by approximately $600.00”).
In his application, Plaintiff, who is 47 years old, indicates he is married with two dependent children. (Doc. 3-1, sealed, at 1-2.) Plaintiff is not currently employed and indicates his spouse also does not work. (Id., at 2-3.) He does, however, state that he was previously self-employed as the manager of an animal kennel with a sizeable monthly income. (Id., at 3.)
The Court surmises that, based on the allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1), he will contend that this employment is no longer possible as a result of the allegedly illegal seizure of animals referenced in the Complaint.
Plaintiff also owns two automobiles and real property, in which there is significant equity. (Id.) In addition, he lists a notable amount of cash on hand as well as in his spouse's bank account. (Id., at 4.) He has received no government benefits in the past 12 months. (Id.) Although Plaintiff has the assets listed above, he also has significant monthly expenditures and expenses, with apparently no prospects for income in the near future. (Id., at 5-6.)
Considering the information submitted by Plaintiff, the Court finds he has established that his access to the Court would be significantly limited absent the ability to file this action without payment of fees and costs. This is particularly true when comparing his monthly expenses to his (non-existent) monthly income. Patillo, 2002 WL 1162684, at *1. The Court thus GRANTS Plaintiff s request to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 3, sealed.)
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for In Forma Pauperis status (Doc. 3) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.