Jones v. Waypoint Resource Group LLC

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 3, 2024
• Docket: 3:23-cv-06088
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 NYESHA JONES, Case No. 3:23-cv-06088-TMC 7 Plaintiff, v. ORDER GRANTING 8 APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN WAYPOINT RESOURCE GROUP LLC, FORMA PAUPERIS 9 Defendants. 10

11 Plaintiff Nyesha Jones, who is proceeding pro se, filed a motion to proceed in 12 forma pauperis (IFP). Dkt. 1. According to 28 U.S.C. §1915(a)(1): 13 [A]ny court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal therein, 14 without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such prisoner1 possesses that the 15 person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. Such affidavit shall state the nature of the action, defense or appeal and affiant's belief that the 16 person is entitled to redress.

17 The purpose of Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) is to ensure that indigent persons 18 have access to the courts. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 342 19 (1948). To be eligible for IFP status, the party does not need to establish that he or she 20

21 1 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) applies to both prisoners and to non-prisoners who make a motion to proceed IFP. A prisoner would be required to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2); they are required to provide 22 trust account information and make regular payments. Unsuccessful non-prisoner litigants would not be required to pre-pay the filing fee, but would be liable for fees and costs when they are financially able. 23 Brown v. Eppler, 725 F.3d 1221, 1230-31 (10th Cir. 2013). The use of the term “prisoner possesses” has been interpreted as a typographical error. Floyd v. U.S. Postal Service, Service, 105 F.3d 274, 275-77 24 (6th Cir. 1997), modified on other grounds in Callihan v. Schneider, 178 F.3d 800, 801 (6th Cir. 1999). 1 is destitute. Id. at 339. It is important to implement the statute in a practical manner so 2 that a party is not faced with the choice of either abandoning a potentially meritorious 3 claim or going without the necessities of life. Potnick v. Eastern State Hospital, 701 4 F.2d 243, 244 (2d Cir. 1983) (court grants IFP motion concerning $120.00 for filing fees

5 where plaintiff’s monthly government benefits provided an income significantly below 6 poverty level, he had little money in the bank, and significant debt); Cf. Simelton v. 7 Xerox Corp., 172 F.3d 876 (9th Cir. 1999) (Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s 8 discretion to deny IFP status where the party’s annual income was above the poverty 9 threshold, and his debts were modest); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Charles W. Sears 10 Real Estate, Inc., 865 F.2d 22, 23-24 (2d Cir.1988) (stating that the plaintiff had an 11 income of $20,000 per year and therefore would not qualify as indigent under this IFP 12 statute). If a litigant has the wherewithal to pay court fees and costs without thereby 13 being deprived of the necessities of life, then the court may justifiably require that she 14 “put [her] money where [her] mouth is.” Williams v. Latins, 877 F.2d 65 (9th Cir. 1989);

15 Himebauch v. Kaweah Delta Medical Center, No. 12-cv-0587 LJO BAM, 2012 WL 16 1969057 at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2012, May 31, 2012) report and recommendation adopted, No. 17 12-cv-0587 LJO BAM, 2012 WL 2339340 (E.D. Cal. June 19, 2012) (citations omitted). 18 19 20 21 22 23

24 1 Based on the information supplied to the Court, it appears plaintiff cannot afford 2 the $405.00 filing fee. Therefore, plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis 3 (Dkt. 1) is GRANTED. 4

5 Dated this 3rd day of January, 2024. 6 7 A 8 Theresa L. Fricke 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24