Devodus Rouse v. Joel Anderson

• Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
• Decided: May 13, 2026
• Docket: 4:26-cv-01892
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Devodus Rouse, ) C/A No. 4:26-01892-RMG-TER Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Report and Recommendation ) Joel Anderson, ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________________) The sole issue in this Report and Recommendation is whether Plaintiff should be required to pay the filing fee, or whether his financial condition justifies waiver of the filing fee. Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff has filed an Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (AO 240), also known as an application to proceed in forma pauperis. In his application, Plaintiff states under penalty of perjury that he has cash or checking or savings accounts in the amount of zero dollars. (ECF No. 2). However, SCDC’s financial certificate shows $7,353.73. (ECF No. 2). This information raises questions over the application to proceed without prepayment of fees. A litigant is not required to show that he is completely destitute in order to qualify as an indigent within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 337-44 (1948). Grants or denials of applications to proceed in forma pauperis are left to the discretion of federal district courts. See Dillard v. Liberty Loan Corp., 626 F.2d 363, 364 (4th Cir. 1980). One district court has observed that the appropriate disposition of § 1915 applications is not always clear: “‘[T]here are no ‘magic formulas’ for making the determination that the requisite in forma pauperis status is present, but instead, there is required a careful scrutiny and weighing of all of the relevant facts and circumstances involved in each particular situation.’” Carter v. Telectron, Inc., 452 F. Supp. 939, 942 (S.D. Tex. 1976) (quotation and internal citation omitted). In Carter, the district court, citing Adkins and cases in the Third and Fifth Circuits, set forth three legal tests that this court1 has also used to evaluate in forma pauperis applications, in exercising their discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a):

(1) Is the litigant “barred from the Federal Courts by reason of his impecunity?” (2) Is his “access to the courts blocked by the imposition of an undue hardship?” (3) Is the litigant “forced to contribute his last dollar, or render himself destitute to prosecute his claim?” 452 F. Supp. at 943. Upon a review of all the information before the Court, mindful of the tests set forth in Carter, it does not appear that Plaintiff would be barred from the federal courts because he simply does not have the money for the total of the filing fee of $350.00 plus $55 administrative fee, nor that paying that fee would effectively block his access to the courts by imposing on him an “undue hardship,” nor that the fee would wring from him his last dollar or essentially render him destitute. Hence, Plaintiff must “‘confront the initial dilemma which faces most other potential civil litigants: Is the merit of the claim worth the cost of pursuing it?’” Carter, 452 F. Supp. at 944 (internal citation omitted).

1 See e.g., Cabbil v. U.S., 2015 WL6905072 (D.S.C. Nov. 9, 2015), Stritzinger v. Delaware, 2015 WL 5965268 (D.S.C. Oct 13, 2015). 2 RECOMMENDATION On the sole issue of this Report and Recommendation, it is recommended that the Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees be denied and upon adoption of this report by the district judge that Plaintiff be ordered to pay the $350 filing fee and the administrative fee

of $55 within 14 days of adoption. s/ Thomas E. Rogers, III Thomas E. Rogers, III United States Magistrate Judge May 13, 2026 Florence, South Carolina

Plaintiff’s attention is directed to the important notice on the next page. 3 Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.’” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note). Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to: Robin L. Blume, Clerk United States District Court Post Office Box 2317 Florence, South Carolina 29503 Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).