Hal Von Luebbert v. City of Lubbock, et al.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUBBOCK DIVISION HAL VON LUEBBERT, Plaintiff, v. | No. 5:26-CV-054-H CITY OF LUBBOCK, étal., Defendants. ORDER Before the Court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations (FCR) of the assigned United States Magistrate Judge. Dkt. No. 5. The FCR recommends denying plaintiff Hal Von Luebbert’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 4. Von Luebbert objects. Dkt. No. 8. As the FCR explains, “[p]roceeding IFP in a civil case ‘is a privilege that may be extended or withdrawn.’” Dkt. No. 5 at 1 (quoting Birgans v. Louisiana, 411 F. App’x 717, 718 (Sth Cir. 2011) (per curiam)). “The central question” in deciding whether to grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis “is whether the movant can afford the costs of proceeding without undue hardship or deprivation of the necessities of life.” Jd. at 2 (quoting Ayers v. Tex. Dep't of Crim. Just., No. 94-10808, 1995 WL 696702, at *1 (Sth Cir. Oct. 19, 1995) (per curiam)). Because Von Luebbert’s IFP form indicated that he netted a surplus of $1,200 per month after living expenses, the Magistrate Judge recommends denying the motion. /d. Von Luebbert objects that the form fails to capture his full financial costs, including medical care. See Dkt. No. 8 at 2, 5-6. He says that he is willingly putting off medical and dental care in order to bankroll his litigation efforts. Jd. at 2. He also attaches his bank statements as proof of his indigency. /d. at 8-14.

These facts are not properly before the Court, however, because they were not presented to the Magistrate Judge when Von Luebbert submitted his IFP form. See K. Invs., Inc. v. B-Gas Ltd., No. 21-40642, 2022 WL 964210, at *5 (Sth Cir. Mar. 30, 2022) (“It is well settled that issues raised for the first time in objections to a magistrate judge’s report are deemed not properly before the district court.”); Chapman v. Chapman, No. 5:26-CV-023, Dkt. No. 100 at 7 (N.D. Tex. July 7, 2026) (rejecting a claim based on new evidence for this reason). The Court therefore reviews the FCR for plain error. See Serrano v. Customs & Border Patrol, U.S. Customs & Border Prot., 975 F.3d 488, 502 (5th Cir. 2020). Finding none, the Court accepts and adopts the FCR. The Court orders Von Luebbert to pay the $405.00 filing fee on or before July 27, 2026. So ordered on July 1S _, 2026.

of STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3a