Jackson v. Nero

E.D. Louisiana

Jackson v. Nero

DecidedAugust 20, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-01673

StatusUnknown

This text of Jackson v. Nero (Jackson v. Nero) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jackson v. Nero, (E.D. La. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA SAM JACKSON * CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS * NO. 25-1673

SGT. B. NERO, ET AL. * SECTION “H” (2)

ORDER AND REASONS

On August 15, 2025, the undersigned denied without prejudice Plaintiff Sam Jackson’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis for failure to provide full and complete information regarding his assets and monthly expenses. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff has filed a second Ex Parte/Consent Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis providing one additional piece of information (i.e., the amount of his SSDI), but again fails to provide any substantive response with regard to monthly expenses or debts. Compare ECF No. 4, with ECF No. 2. Although Plaintiff now indicates that he receives $840 per month in SSDI and has no other assets, he indicates that he has -0- regular monthly expenses (e.g., transportation, housing, utilities, loan payments) and has -0- debts or financial obligations. See ECF No. 4 ¶¶ 6, 8. Although $10,080 annual income is below national poverty level guidelines1 and thus suggests that Plaintiff should be able to qualify for in forma pauperis status, his continued failure to specify any monthly expenses and debts and recent assertion that he has zero monthly expenses, debts or other financial obligations precludes the Court from determining that he in fact does qualify for in forma pauperis status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.2 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the right to re-file. If Plaintiff re-files another motion, he MUST fully complete the attached long form

1 https://aspe.hhs.gov/topics/poverty-economic-mobility/poverty-guidelines 2 See Prows v. Kastner, 842 F.2d 138, 140 (5th Cir. 1988) (holding that assessment of in forma pauperis motion requires review of demands on plaintiff's financial resources, including whether expenses are discretionary or mandatory). affidavit disclosing all financial information, including the specific amounts of any monthly expenses or liabilities, as necessary for this Court to determine whether he qualifies for in forma pauperis status. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 20th day of August, 2025.

om 9 Milly CURRAULT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA SAM JACKSON * CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS * NO. 25-1673

SGT. B. NERO, ET AL. * SECTION “H” (2)

ORDER AND REASONS

On August 15, 2025, the undersigned denied without prejudice Plaintiff Sam Jackson’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis for failure to provide full and complete information regarding his assets and monthly expenses. ECF No. 3. Plaintiff has filed a second Ex Parte/Consent Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis providing one additional piece of information (i.e., the amount of his SSDI), but again fails to provide any substantive response with regard to monthly expenses or debts. Compare ECF No. 4, with ECF No. 2. Although Plaintiff now indicates that he receives $840 per month in SSDI and has no other assets, he indicates that he has -0- regular monthly expenses (e.g., transportation, housing, utilities, loan payments) and has -0- debts or financial obligations. See ECF No. 4 ¶¶ 6, 8. Although $10,080 annual income is below national poverty level guidelines1 and thus suggests that Plaintiff should be able to qualify for in forma pauperis status, his continued failure to specify any monthly expenses and debts and recent assertion that he has zero monthly expenses, debts or other financial obligations precludes the Court from determining that he in fact does qualify for in forma pauperis status pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.2 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the right to re-file. If Plaintiff re-files another motion, he MUST fully complete the attached long form

1 https://aspe.hhs.gov/topics/poverty-economic-mobility/poverty-guidelines 2 See Prows v. Kastner, 842 F.2d 138, 140 (5th Cir. 1988) (holding that assessment of in forma pauperis motion requires review of demands on plaintiff's financial resources, including whether expenses are discretionary or mandatory). affidavit disclosing all financial information, including the specific amounts of any monthly expenses or liabilities, as necessary for this Court to determine whether he qualifies for in forma pauperis status. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 20th day of August, 2025.

om 9 Milly CURRAULT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jackson v. Nero, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-nero-laed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack