Hubbert v. LJ Ross Associates, Inc.
This text of Hubbert v. LJ Ross Associates, Inc. (Hubbert v. LJ Ross Associates, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 23-cv-20047-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
TYPONESHA M. HUBBERT,
Plaintiff,
v.
LJ ROSS ASSOCIATES, INC., et al.,
Defendants. ___________________________/
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Typonesha Monique Hubbert’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Leave to Proceed in this action in forma pauperis, ECF No. [3] (the “IFP Motion”), filed on January 6, 2023. The Court has carefully considered the IFP Motion, the record in this case, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s IFP Motion is denied. Section 1915 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); see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 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 v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305, 1307 (11th Cir. 2004); see also Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948) (IFP status need not be granted where one can 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 New Jersey, 261 F. App’x 399, 401 (3d Cir. 2008) (using HHS Guidelines as basis for section 1915 determination); Lewis v. Ctr. Mkt., 378 F. App’x 780, 784 (10th Cir. 2010) (affirming use of HHS guidelines). The section 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). 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); see also Thomas, 574 F. App’x at 916 (“A district court has wide discretion in ruling on an application for leave to proceed IFP.”). Plaintiff’s IFP Motion represents that she receives $500 per week in gross pay or wages and that she receives $460 per week in take-home pay. ECF No. [3] at 1.1 Plaintiff’s IFP Motion further represents that Plaintiff provides a “100% contribution” to support one dependent child. Id. at 2. As such, Plaintiff’s income exceeds the poverty guideline. See 87 Fed. Reg. 3315 (Jan. 21, 2022) (setting $18,310.00 per year as the poverty guideline for a two-person household). In addition, Plaintiff has $600 in cash or in a checking or savings account. ECF No. [3] at 2. While
Plaintiff’s IFP Motion states certain financial obligations, which total $1,550 per month, id., it demonstrates an ability to support and provide necessities for her and her dependent child, despite payment of the required filing fee. The Court therefore determines that Plaintiff is not unable to pay the required filing fee as required for indigent status under Section 1915.
1 Plaintiff’s IFP Motion also represents that Plaintiff received income from a business, profession, or other self-employment in the past twelve months but does not specify the amounts received from such Case No. 23-cv-20021-BLOOM/Otazo-Reyes
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's IFP Motion, ECF No. [3], is DENIED. Plaintiff shall pay the applicable filing fee on or before January 20, 2023. Plaintiff is cautioned that the failure to comply will result in dismissal of this case without prejudice and without further notice. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on January 9, 2023. i L UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies to: Counsel of Record Typonesha Monique Hubbert 1935 NW 133” Street Miami, FL 33167 305-508-0930 Email: thubb002@fiu.edu PRO SE
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Hubbert v. LJ Ross Associates, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hubbert-v-lj-ross-associates-inc-flsd-2023.