Opinion
3:24-cv-00063-CDL-AGH
07-03-2024
MELANIE DRAKE, Plaintiff, v. MONICA SALDANO, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
AMELIA G. HELMICK, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On July 1, 2024, Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint (ECF No. 1) alleging employment discrimination under Title VII in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. On the same day, Plaintiff filed a motion 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 no income, no funds, no assets, and no expenses. Pl.'s Mot. to Proceed IFP 1-5, ECF No. 2. Plaintiff states she has not gone back to work since an alleged accident, and while she alleges she is “waiting on [her] long term disability[,]” she provides no explanation whatsoever as to how she is able to exist without income or assets. 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).
The Southern District of Georgia transferred the case to this Court on July 3, 2024. Order 2, July 3, 2024, ECF No. 4.
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. Plaintiff is also instructed to inform the Clerk of Court of any change in her mailing address while this action is pending. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action. The Clerk is directed to provide Plaintiff with a new blank long-form IFP application for non-prisoners.
SO ORDERED.