Summary
applying federal poverty guidelines to in forma pauperis application
Summary of this case from Salmeron v. SaulOpinion
Case No. 1:18-cv-01163-LJO-BAM
10-31-2018
MATTHEW BOULAS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS BE DENIED ORDER DENYING AMENDED APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (Doc. Nos. 2,3 and 4)
Plaintiff Matthew Boulas ("Plaintiff") is proceeding pro se in this civil matter. Plaintiff initiated this action on August 27, 2018. (Doc. 1). On the same day, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 2).
On September 18, 2018, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations that Plaintiff's application to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs (Doc. 2) be denied, and Plaintiff be required to pay the $400.00 filing fee in full to proceed with this action. (Doc. No. 3.) The findings and recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id.) On October 1, 2018, in lieu of formal objections, Plaintiff filed an amended application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. No. 4.)
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case, including the amended application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court finds that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Even if the Court were to construe Plaintiff's amended application as an objection to the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations, Plaintiff has failed to make the requisite showing that he is unable to pay the required fees for this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).
Plaintiff's initial application indicated that he received take-home pay or wages in the amount of $1,840.00 per month, and $420.00 per week in state disability benefits. (Doc. No. 2 at 1.) In his amended application, however, Plaintiff now asserts that he does not receive gross pay or wages, but instead receives an unspecified amount in disability or worker's compensation payments. (Doc. No. 4.) Plaintiff's application is incomplete and does not appear to be a true and correct statement regarding the amount of monthly income that he receives from any source. Even assuming Plaintiff does not receive any take-home pay or wages, his amended application represents to this Court that he receives state disability benefits. He has omitted from his amended application the exact amount of those benefits, leaving the original application, which indicates he receives $420.00 per week in state benefits, as the only evidence related to those benefits. This amounts to an income of at least $21,840.00. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has not made the requisite showing to justify permitting him to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee.
Many courts look to the federal poverty guidelines set by the United States Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") as a guidepost in evaluating in forma pauperis applications. See Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305, 1307 n.5 (11th Cir. 2004). For a family of two, the present poverty guideline is $16,460. See U.S. Federal Poverty Guidelines Used to Determine Financial Eligibility for Certain Federal Programs, available at
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 18, 2018, are adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff's applications to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs (Doc. Nos. 2 and 4) are denied; and
3. Within thirty (30) days, Plaintiff shall pay the $400.00 filing fee in full in order to proceed with this action. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 31 , 2018
/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines (last visited October 31, 2018). Also relevant is the fact that, assuming Plaintiff receives $420.00 a week in state benefits, his income is above his stated expenses. Lopez-Ruiz v. Tripler Army Med. Ctr.'s Postdoctoral Fellowship in Clinical Psychology, No. CV. 11-0066 JMS/BMK, 2011 WL 486952, at *1 (D. Haw. Feb. 4, 2011) (denying in forma pauperis status to plaintiff whose income was $1,800 per month and whose monthly income exceeded monthly expenses).