Opinion
3:24-CV-17-CDL
02-29-2024
CAROLYN L. ALEXANDER, Plaintiff, v. MELANIE SIMON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
STEPHEN HYLES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On February 28, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging claims under the False Claims Act (ECF No. 1). The same day, Plaintiff also filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 2). Plaintiff, however, failed to provide sufficient information for the Court to determine whether she qualifies to proceed IFP. She reports having disability income of $743.00 per month and $4,144.21 in monthly expenses, including $800.00 a month for homeowner's or renter's insurance while she pays $269.21 in rent per month, but she provides no explanation whatsoever as to how she is able to subsist. Mot. to Proceed IFP 1-5, ECF No. 2. She also adds that she has been severely abused during her life. Id. at 5. Plaintiff's affidavit is implausible on its face. Therefore, the affidavit is not “‘sufficient on its face to demonstrate economic eligibility' for in forma pauperis status.” Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305, 1307-08 (11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam).
Put another way, Plaintiff has an annual income of $8,916, but she spends $49,731 per year.
Therefore, Plaintiff is ORDERED to recast her motion for leave to proceed IFP within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS. Plaintiff must provide a more detailed explanation of her funds, assets, expenses, and her inability to pay filing fees or costs, particularly in light of the enormous discrepancy between her alleged monthly income and her alleged monthly expenses. The Clerk is directed to provide Plaintiff with a new blank long-form IFP application.
SO ORDERED