Ashley Fulton v. Mike Lambert

• Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio
• Decided: June 30, 2026
• Docket: 4:26-cv-00256
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

PEARSON, J. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION

ASHLEY FULTON, ) ) CASE NO. 4:26CV0256 Plaintiff, ) ) JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON v. ) ) MIKE LAMBERT, ) MEMORANDUM OF OPINION ) AND ORDER Defendant. ) [Resolving ECF No. 2]

Pro Se Plaintiff Ashley Fulton filed the above-captioned civil case against Youngstown Police Officer Mike Lambert. See Complaint (ECF No. 1). She did not pay the filing fee, but instead filed an Application to Proceed Jn Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a court “may authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal therein, without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” Proceeding in forma pauperis in federal court is a privilege and not a right, and permission to do so is committed to the sound discretion of the Court. Wilson v. Yaklich, 148 F.3d 596, 603 (6th Cir. 1998); Weaver v. Toombs, 948 F.2d 1004, 1008 (6th Cir. 1991), superseded by statute on other grounds as discussed in In re Prison Litig. Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131, 1138 (6th Cir. 1997); Marshall v. Beshear, No. 3:10CV-663-R, 2010 WL 5092713, at *3 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 7, 2010). An application to proceed in forma pauperis is properly denied when

(4:26CV0256) the litigant fails to provide required information concerning her expenses and financial obligations, such that the court may make a determination as to her ability to pay the filing fee. Flippin v. Coburn, 107 Fed. Appx. 520, 521 (6th Cir. 2004). In addition to bearing the burden of demonstrating that she should be granted in forma pauperis status, a litigant seeking not to pay the filing fee has “an obligation of truthfulness” in her filings. Givens v. Shadyside Police Dept., No. 2:22-cv-4268, 2023 WL 3089066, at *5 (S.D. Ohio April 26, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:22-cv-04268, 2023 WL 3868394, at *1 (S.D. Ohio June 7, 2023). Denial of an application is warranted when a litigant fails to “answer straightforward questions” about her financial circumstances or provides inconsistent or unclear information. Givens, 2023 WL 3868394, at *1. Here, the Court does not find that Plaintiff has provided valid and sufficient information regarding her financial circumstances sufficient to justify granting her leave to proceed in forma pauperis. First, despite clear instruction on page | of the AO 239 Application to Proceed Jn Forma Pauperis (the long form) that an applicant should “not leave any blanks,” Plaintiff left completely blank large sections of her application. See ECF No. 2 at PageID #: 13-14, □□ □□□□ In addition, the information she has provided on its face is implausible. Plaintiff indicates she has no assets or financial resources of any kind, but Plaintiff indicates she has $3,600 in total monthly expenses, see ECF No. 2 at PageID #: 15-16, 8, with no explanation as to how those expenses are paid. Because Plaintiffs representations on the form appear implausible, or that she has not made a sincere and truthful effort to fill out the form, her Application to Proceed Jn Forma

(4:26CV0256) Pauperis (ECF No. 2) is denied, and this action is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff may move to reopen this case within thirty (30) days of the date of this Memorandum of Opinion and Order by filing a Motion to Reopen along with either (1) payment of the full $405.00 filing fee or

(2) a new, complete AO 239 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (the long form) demonstrating she meets the criterion of poverty. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

June 30, 2026 /s/ Benita Y. Pearson Date Benita Y. Pearson United States District Judge