Opinion
No. 3:04-CV-0969-K.
June 10, 2004
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and an order of the District Court, this cause has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, as evidenced by his signature thereto, are as follows:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
Type of Case: This is an employment discrimination action.
Parties: Plaintiff is a resident of De Soto, Texas. Defendant is the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services, John Adamo, and Stewart Mackey. The court has not issued process in this case.
Statement of the Case: On May 5, 2004, Plaintiff filed the complaint in this action along with a motion to proceed in forma pauperis to establish that he is unable to pay the $150.00 filing fee.
Findings and Conclusions: The statute authorizing the court to grant in forma pauperis status to an indigent litigant states that:
Subject to subsection (b), any court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal therein, without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. Such affidavit shall state the nature of the action, defense or appeal and affiant's belief that the person is entitled to redress.28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
The mere execution of an affidavit of indigence does not automatically entitle a litigant to proceed in forma pauperis. Rather, the court enjoys limited discretion to grant or deny a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis based upon the financial statement set forth within the applicant's affidavit.Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours Co., Inc., 335 U.S. 331, 337, 69 S.Ct. 85, 88 (1948); Prows v. Kastner, 842 F.2d 138, 140 (5th Cir. 1988) Green v. Estelle, 649 F.2d 298, 302 (5th Cir. Unit A June 1981); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Courts should make the assessment 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.
Plaintiff has failed to show that he is a person entitled to proceed without the payment of the $150 filing fee. His motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, filed on May 5, 2004, includes an affidavit describing his assets and liabilities. He and his wife currently receive a combined gross income of $2,918.00; they own three vehicles and a home with approximately $29,000 in equity. In addition, within the last twelve months, Plaintiff received distribution from his former employer's pension fund of $31,608.58 and unemployment compensation of $2,445.00. Under such circumstances the magistrate judge is of the opinion that Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis should be denied.
RECOMMENDATION:
For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the District Court enter its order denying Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
It is further recommended that the District Court inform Plaintiff that his complaint will be subject to dismissal without notice, unless Plaintiff tenders the $150.00 filing fee within thirty (30) days of the District Court's order.
The Clerk will mail a copy of this recommendation to Plaintiff.