United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
ELIZABETH A. PRESTON DEAVERS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is before the Court for consideration of
Plaintiff's Application to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis. (ECF No. 1.)
United States Supreme Court, in Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de
Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, (1948), set forth the
legal standards governing applications to proceed in
forma pauperis. The Adkins Court advised that
“one must not be absolutely destitute to enjoy the
benefit of the statute” and that the statute does not
require an individual to “contribute . . . the last
dollar they have or can get.” Id. at 339. The
Court explained that “[t]he public would not be
profited if relieved of paying costs of a particular
litigation only to have imposed on it the expense of
supporting the person thereby made an object of public
support.” Id. Rather, what is required is a
demonstration via affidavit that “because of his [or
her] poverty, ” the applicant cannot pay the fee and
continue to provide for the necessities of life. Id.
Courts evaluating applications to proceed in forma
pauperis, generally consider an applicant's
employment, annual income and expenses, and any other
property or assets the individual possesses. Giles v.
Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 14-CV-11553, 2014 WL
2217136, at *1 (E.D. Mich. May 29, 2014).
the information set forth in Plaintiff's in forma
pauperis affidavit does not demonstrate his inability to
pay. While Plaintiff represents that he has $40, 000 in
outstanding student loans, the affidavit also demonstrates
that he has no dependents and significant valuable assets,
including $14, 000 in cash, savings, checking, or in another
account. (ECF No. 1 at PAGEID # 3.) Cf. Walker v.
Wechsler, No. 1:16-cv-01417-JLT (PC), 2017 WL 2535340,
at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 12, 2017) (revoking in forma
pauperis status once the court learned that the
plaintiff had omitted from his application that he had $10,
000, at the time he filed his application and “it is
clear that Plaintiff was not impoverished when he filed this
action”); Pierre v. Miami Dade Cty. Public
Sch., No. 14-22045-CIV, 2014 WL 5393045, at *1 (S.D.
Fla. Oct. 22, 2014) (denying request to proceed in forma
pauperis where the plaintiff's monthly income was
$1, 828, she had a checking account with a balance of $15,
000, and her monthly expenses totaled approximately $2, 000).
In addition, Plaintiff's affidavit reflects that his
average monthly income is $6, 160 (ECF No. 1 at PAGEID # 2.),
which places Plaintiff's income at more than six times
the poverty level of income for a family of one. See
Annual Update of the HHS Poverty Guidelines, 82 Fed.
Reg. 8831-03, 8832 (Jan. 31, 2017) (listing the poverty line
as $12, 060, for a family of one); Pramuk v.
Hiestand, No. 3:16-CV-572, 2016 WL 7407011, at *1 (N.D.
Ind. Dec. 22, 2016) (“Because Pramuk's stated
income is substantially more than the poverty level, she does
not qualify under the in forma pauperis
statute.”); Behmlander v. Comm'r of Soc.
Sec., No. 12-14424, 2012 WL 5457383, at *1 (E.D. Mich.
Nov. 8, 2012) (denying motion to proceed in forma
pauperis where the Plaintiff's income was more than
twice the federal poverty level).
in view of Plaintiff's monthly income of $6, 160 and his
assets totaling approximately $14, 000, the Undersigned finds
that Plaintiff has not demonstrated that, because of his
poverty, he is unable to pay for the costs of this litigation
and still provide for himself. It is therefore
RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's Application
to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1) be
DENIED and that he be ordered to pay the
required $400 filing fee within FOURTEEN (14)
DAYS if he intends to proceed.
if Plaintiff complies with his obligation to pay the full
filing fee, the Court will conduct an initial screening of
the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to determine
whether or not any claims are subject to dismissal as
frivolous, malicious, failing to state a claim, or because
the Complaint seeks monetary relief from a Defendant who is
immune from such relief. The Court will then enter an
appropriate order and direct service of summons and complaint
on Defendants. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS
the Clerk to NOT process summons or
effect service of process unless and until directed to do so
by the Court.
party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and
Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days,
file and serve on all parties objections to the Report and
Recommendation, specifically designating this Report and
Recommendation, and the part in question, as well as the
basis for objection. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b). Response to objections must be filed within fourteen
(14) days after being served with a copy. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).
parties are specifically advised that the failure to object
to the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of
the right to de novo review of by the District Judge
and waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the
District Court. See, e.g., Pfahler v.
Nat'l Latex Prod. Co., 517 F.3d 816, 829
(6th Cir. 2007) (holding that “failure to object to the
magistrate judge's recommendations constituted a waiver
of [the defendant's] ability to appeal the district
court's ruling”); United States v.
Sullivan, 431 F.3d 976, 984 (6th Cir. 2005) (holding
that defendant waived appeal of district court's denial
of pretrial motion by failing to timely object to magistrate
judge's report and recommendation). Even when timely
objections are filed, appellate review of issues not raised
in those objections is waived. Robert v. Tesson, 507
F.3d 981, 994 (6th Cir. 2007) (“[A] general objection
to a magistrate judge's report, which fails to specify
the issues of contention, does not suffice to preserve an
issue for appeal . . . .” (citation omitted)).