Opinion
4:24-cv-00041-CDL-MSH
03-08-2024
BRODRICK M. WALKER, Plaintiff, v. Sheriff GREG COUNTRYMAN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
STEPHEN HYLES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On March 29, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No. 1). The same day, Plaintiff also filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff, however, failed to provide sufficient information for the Court to determine whether he qualifies to proceed IFP. He reports having no income of any kind and no monthly expenses of any kind-while supporting a six year old son-but he provides no explanation whatsoever as to how he is able to subsist other than a general statement that he is disabled and cannot work due to his having no range of motion in his left arm. Mot. to Proceed IFP 1-5, ECF No. 3. 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).
Therefore, Plaintiff is ORDERED to recast his motion for leave to proceed IFP within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS. Plaintiff must provide a more detailed explanation of his funds, assets, expenses, and his inability to pay filing fees or costs, particularly in light of the fact that he allegedly has no income with no debt, but still supports himself and his minor child. The Clerk is directed to provide Plaintiff with a new blank non-prisoner long-form IFP application.
SO ORDERED.