Crossett v. Midgley

• Court: District Court, D. Utah
• Decided: October 23, 2024
• Docket: 1:24-cv-00125
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH NORTHERN DIVISION

DAVID D. CROSSETT, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO Plaintiff, PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (DOC. NO. 34) v. Case No. 1:24-cv-00125 TREVOR MIDGLEY, et al., District Judge David Barlow Defendants. Magistrate Judge Daphne A. Oberg

Plaintiff David Crossett has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.1 As explained below, because Mr. Crossett has already paid the filing fee and has not demonstrated he qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis, his motion is denied. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a federal court may authorize commencement of an action without prepayment of fees by a person who is unable to pay such fees.2 To qualify for a fee waiver under § 1915, a party must show a financial inability to pay the required filing fee.3 The District of Utah’s local rules require that “a party’s total monthly income must be equal to or below 200% of the United States poverty guideline” to

1 (Doc. No. 34.) 2 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 3 Lister v. Dep’t of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005). qualify.4 “[P]roceeding [in forma pauperis] in a civil case is a privilege, not a right— fundamental or otherwise.”5 “The decision to grant or deny in forma pauperis status under § 1915 lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.”6 Here, Mr. Crossett paid the filing fee when he filed this case on July 23, 2024.7 Therefore, Mr. Crossett has not demonstrated an inability to pay the fee. Additionally, while he reports his individual income is below 200% of the federal poverty guideline, he reports his spouse’s income far exceeds this threshold.8 Although Mr. Crossett argues spousal income should not be considered,9 courts have routinely recognized that income of a party’s spouse or other close family members is relevant to determining indigency under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.10 Considering his spouse’s income, Mr. Crossett

4 DUCivR 3-2(a)(1)(A). The local civil rules are available at https://www.utd.uscourts.gov/sites/utd/files/Civil%20Rules%20Final%202023.pdf. 5 White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1233 (10th Cir. 1998) (second alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). 6 Cabrera v. Horgas, No. 98-4231, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 7890, at *2 (10th Cir. Apr. 23, 1999) (unpublished). 7 (See Docket Text Entry for Compl., Doc. No. 1 (acknowledging receipt of the filing fee).) 8 (See Mot. to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 2, Doc. No. 34.) 9 (See id. at 6.) 10 See, e.g., Martin v. A-1 Elec. Heat & Air, No. CIV-16-1348-R, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181888, at *2 n.2 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 20, 2016) (unpublished) (“Spousal income is an appropriate consideration when making a determination as to whether an applicant qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis.”); Zhu v. Countrywide Realty Co., 148 F. Supp. 2d 1154, 1155 (D. Kan. 2001) (“In a number of cases, courts have found that the income and assets of close family members are relevant to a determination of indigency under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.”); see also McKinzy v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 19-2528, 2019 U.S. does not qualify for a fee waiver. For all these reasons, Mr. Crossett has not demonstrated he qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Therefore, Mr. Crossett’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis'' is denied. DATED this 23rd day of October, 2024. BY THE COURT:

coe A. Oberg United States Magistrate Judge

Dist. LEXIS 168909, at *2 (D. Kan. Sept. 30, 2019) (unpublished) (considering household income in denying a motion to waive the filing fee). 11 (Doc. No. 34.)