Bowman v. Honolulu Police Department

D. Hawaii

Bowman v. Honolulu Police Department

DecidedOctober 10, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-00430

StatusUnknown

This text of Bowman v. Honolulu Police Department (Bowman v. Honolulu Police Department) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Hawaii primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bowman v. Honolulu Police Department, (D. Haw. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I

MONTELL ALEXANDER BOWMAN, Case No. 25-cv-00430-DKW-WRP

Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING APPLICATION v. TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES OR HONOLULU POLICE DEPARTMENT, COSTS1

Defendant.

On October 7, 2025, Plaintiff Montell Bowman, proceeding without counsel, filed a Complaint against the Honolulu Police Department (HPD), appearing to allege that his rights under various federal statutory and constitutional provisions had been violated by HPD. Dkt. No. 1. At the same time, Bowman also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”), Dkt. No. 2, which, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915, the Court now assesses below. Federal courts can authorize the commencement of any suit without prepayment of fees or security by a person who submits an affidavit that demonstrates an inability to pay. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). “[A] plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness and

1Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c), the Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing. certainty.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). While Section 1915(a) does not require a litigant to demonstrate absolute destitution, Adkins v. EI. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948), an applicant must nonetheless show an inability “to pay such fees or give security therefor,” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Based upon the information provided in the IFP Application, Bowman has failed to show an inability to pay the $405 filing fee for this civil action. In the IFP Application, Bowman represents that he earns $2,000 per month, has $50,000 in a checking account, and has no dependents. /d. at 1-3. Bowman also identifies no

expenses. See generally id. In this light, Bowman has sufficient assets and/or income to pay the $405 filing fee. As a result, the IFP Application is DENIED. Bowman may have until October 24, 2025 to pay the $405 filing fee for this action. The Court cautions Bowman that failure to pay the filing fee by October 24, 2025 will result in the automatic dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 10, 2025 at Honolulu, Hawai‘1.

Bion mS Derrick K. Watson MS Chief United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I

MONTELL ALEXANDER BOWMAN, Case No. 25-cv-00430-DKW-WRP

Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING APPLICATION v. TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES OR HONOLULU POLICE DEPARTMENT, COSTS1

Defendant.

On October 7, 2025, Plaintiff Montell Bowman, proceeding without counsel, filed a Complaint against the Honolulu Police Department (HPD), appearing to allege that his rights under various federal statutory and constitutional provisions had been violated by HPD. Dkt. No. 1. At the same time, Bowman also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”), Dkt. No. 2, which, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915, the Court now assesses below. Federal courts can authorize the commencement of any suit without prepayment of fees or security by a person who submits an affidavit that demonstrates an inability to pay. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). “[A] plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty with some particularity, definiteness and

1Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c), the Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing. certainty.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d 1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015). While Section 1915(a) does not require a litigant to demonstrate absolute destitution, Adkins v. EI. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948), an applicant must nonetheless show an inability “to pay such fees or give security therefor,” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Based upon the information provided in the IFP Application, Bowman has failed to show an inability to pay the $405 filing fee for this civil action. In the IFP Application, Bowman represents that he earns $2,000 per month, has $50,000 in a checking account, and has no dependents. /d. at 1-3. Bowman also identifies no

expenses. See generally id. In this light, Bowman has sufficient assets and/or income to pay the $405 filing fee. As a result, the IFP Application is DENIED. Bowman may have until October 24, 2025 to pay the $405 filing fee for this action. The Court cautions Bowman that failure to pay the filing fee by October 24, 2025 will result in the automatic dismissal of this action without prejudice and without further notice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 10, 2025 at Honolulu, Hawai‘1.

Bion mS Derrick K. Watson MS Chief United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Bowman v. Honolulu Police Department, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowman-v-honolulu-police-department-hid-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack