Green-Anderson v. Florida Attorney General

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 19-cv-80421-BLOOM/Reid

CYNTHIA GREEN-ANDERSON,

Petitioner,

v.

MARK S. INCH,

Respondent. /

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on Appeal, ECF No. [21] (“Motion”). The Court has carefully considered the Motion and the record in this case, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner’s Application is granted. Fundamental to our system of justice is that the courthouse doors will not be closed to persons based on their inability to pay a filing fee. Congress has provided that 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 . . . 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); see Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305, 1306 n.1 (11th Cir. 2004) (interpreting § 1915 to apply to all persons seeking to proceed IFP). Section 1915(a) requires a determination as to whether “the statements in the [applicant’s] affidavit satisfy the requirement of poverty.” Watson v. Ault, 525 F.2d 886, 891 (5th Cir. 1976).1

1 Pursuant to Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981), opinions of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued prior to October 1, 1981, are binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit. An applicant’s “affidavit will be held sufficient if it represents that the litigant, because of his poverty, is unable to pay for the court fees and costs, and to support and provide necessities for himself and his dependents.” Martinez, 364 F.3d at 1307; see also Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948) (in forma pauperis status is demonstrated when, because of poverty, one cannot “pay or give security for the costs and still be able to provide himself and

dependents with the necessities of life.”). The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) poverty guidelines are central to an assessment of an applicant’s poverty. See Taylor v. Supreme Court of N.J., 261 F. App’x 399, 401 (3d Cir. 2008) (using HHS Guidelines as basis for § 1915 determination); Lewis v. Ctr. Mkt., 378 F. App’x 780, 784 (10th Cir. 2010) (affirming use of HHS guidelines); see also Annual Update of the HHS Poverty Guidelines, 85 Fed. Reg. 3060 (Jan. 17, 2020). Further, the § 1915 analysis requires “comparing the applicant’s assets and liabilities in order to determine whether he has satisfied the poverty requirement.” Thomas v. Chattahoochee Judicial Circuit, 574 F. App’x 916, 917 (11th Cir. 2014). Ultimately, permission to proceed in forma pauperis is committed to the sound discretion of the Court. Camp v. Oliver, 798 F.2d 434,

437 (11th Cir. 1986). To the extent that Petitioner is appealing the Court’s Order Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. [17], she may proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. Petitioner is currently incarcerated, and she swears in her Motion that she does not earn any wages and is currently unemployed. See ECF No. [21]. Petitioner has also attached a copy of her inmate account reflecting a current account balance of $96.77. Id. at 11-15. Upon review of the HHS poverty guidelines and after examining Petitioner’s financial situation, the Court determines that she is unable to pay the required filing fee and thus qualifies for indigent status under § 1915. Case No. 19-cv-80421-BLOOM/Reid

Accordingly, itis ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Petitioner’s Motion, ECF No. [21], is GRANTED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on September 16, 2020.

BETH BLOOM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies to: Counsel of Record Cynthia Green-Anderson W43169 Hernando Correctional Institution Inmate Mail/Parcels 16415 Spring Hill Drive Brooksville, FL 34604