Opinion
2:03-CV-0402.
July 6, 2004
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff STEVE G. TEPP, acting pro se and while a prisoner confined in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, has filed suit pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983 complaining against the above-referenced defendants and was granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis.
On May 25, 2004, a Report and Recommendation was filed by the United States Magistrate Judge reviewing plaintiff's financial disclosures and recommending pauper status be denied because plaintiff possesses assets sufficient to allow him to satisfy the filing fee. Plaintiff filed his Objections on June 2, 2004, by which he argues his wife and friends are afraid to pay the filing fees on his various lawsuits with his monies, which they hold for his use. He also argues that, at some point in time, he could not obtain a promissory note on his house in Ft. Worth. By his application to proceed in forma pauperis, plaintiff revealed his owns real estate in Forth Worth, Texas, Kenai, AK and Soldotna, AK. Further, he revealed ownership of stock in two separate enmities. By his Objections, plaintiff has failed to plead facts indicating he is unable to pay the filing fee in the instant cause.
The Court notes that, despite his representation on his original complaint that he has never been sanctioned by another court, research into plaintiff's litigation history reveals he suffered the dismissal of cause no. 4:03-CV-1341 due to his failure to pay the filing fee after being notified the Fort Worth division would apply the sanction issued by the Southern District of Texas, Houston division in the amount of $50.00. Moreover, plaintiff appears to have filed at least three cases which he failed to disclose in response to section I.B. of the complaint form, i.e., cause nos. 4:97-CV-998 dismissed under 28 U.S.C. 1915A; 4:94-CV-308 dismissed under 28 U.S.C. 1915(d); and cause no. 4:94-CV-0075, all in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division.
By his response to the Show Cause Order issued in the instant cause, plaintiff argues he never received a sanction in cause no. H-80-CV-2478; however, he also erroneously argues the undersigned Magistrate Judge presided over pretrial matters in that case. Significantly, plaintiff does not contend he was not the plaintiff in that cause.
The Court has made an independent examination of the records in this case and has examined the Magistrate Judge's May 25, 2004, Report and Recommendation, as well as the objections filed by the plaintiff.
The Court is of the opinion that the objections of the plaintiff should be OVERRULED and that the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge should be ADOPTED by the United States District Court.
This Court, therefore, does OVERRULE plaintiff's objections, and does hereby ADOPT the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.
Because he has shown he has more than sufficient assets from which to satisfy the $150.00 filing fee, plaintiff does not qualify for pauper status; and his request to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this Civil Rights Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PAY THE FILING FEE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
The Clerk will mail a copy of this Order to the plaintiff, and to any attorney of record by first class mail.
IT IS SO ORDERED.