Aragones v. Sequium Asset Solutions, LLC.

Opinion

REYNALDO ARAGONES, Case No. 1:25-cv-0744 JLT EPG Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND DIRECTING SEQUIUM ASSET SOLUTIONS, LLC., PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE FILING FEE WITHIN 21 DAYS Defendant. (Docs. 2, 4) Reynaldo Aragones seeks to hold Sequium Asset Solutions liable for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, asserting the company erroneously and/or inaccurately reported his debt and credit history. (Doc. 1 at 5-6.) Plaintiff requests to proceed in forma pauperis, and provided information regarding his wages, expenses, and debts. (Doc. 2.) The magistrate judge reviewed the provided information—including Plaintiff’s representations that his take-home pay was $4,260.09 per month and he had $1,400 in a bank account—and found Plaintiff had “sufficient [funds] to pay the filing fee in this action.” (Doc. 4 at 2.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the Court deny Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Id.) Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 5.) Plaintiff acknowledges that he “reported a savings balance of $1,400 and monthly gross income of $6,463.” (Id. at 1.) However, Plaintiff asserts that “these savings have now been depleted due to essential living costs, leaving [him] financially unable to pay the $405 filing fee.” (Id.) According to Plaintiff, he is “unable to allocate any funds toward court fees without sacrificing basic needs.” (/d.) Plaintiff filed bank account statements that reflected a current balance of $397.28 on July 17, 2025. Cd. at 3.) The Court evaluates an application to proceed in forma pauperis based upon the income and funds available to a plaintiff at the time a complaint is filed. Expenditure of funds after filing does not support a claim of indigency at the time of filing. See Jaramillo v. Burnes, 2023 WL 2575663, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2023). As Plaintiff plainly acknowledges, he had sufficient funds to pay the fee when he filed the complaint. His subsequent expenditures—which include several ATM transactions and withdrawals for hundreds of dollars (see Doc. 5 at 3 6)—do not support a claim of indigency. According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. As the magistrate judge found, Plaintiffs monthly net income of over $4,200 appears sufficient for him to pay the filing fee and still afford necessities. See Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305, 1307 (11th Cir. 2004) (a litigant shows indigency when “unable to pay for the court fees and costs, and to provide necessities for himself and his dependents”). Thus, the Court ORDERS: 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated July 9, 2025 (Doc. 4) are ADOPTED. 2. Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) is DENIED. 3. Plaintiff SHALL pay the $405.00 filing fee in full within 21 days of the date of service to proceed with this action. Failure to pay the filing fee as ordered will result in the Court dismissing the action without prejudice. Dated: _ August 14, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE