Jose M. Hudson v. State of Minnesota, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, Officer Wall, Officer Knutz, St. Paul Police Department, Minn. Stat. § 609.342 (2002), and Minn. Stat. § 624.713

• Court: District Court, D. Minnesota
• Decided: December 15, 2025
• Docket: 0:25-cv-04599
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

JOSE M. HUDSON, Case No. 25-CV-4599 (JMB/JFD)

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

STATE OF MINNESOTA, BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPREHENSION, OF- FICER WALL, OFFICER KNUTZ, ST. PAUL POLICE DEPARTMENT, MINN. STAT. § 609.342 (2002), and MINN. STAT. § 624.713,

Defendants.

This case is before the Court on Plaintiff Jose M. Hudson’s “Motion to Proceed” (Dkt. No. 2 (“IFP Application”)), which the Court construes as an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). For the reasons below, the Court denies the IFP Application without prejudice. “The central question [when assessing an IFP application] is whether the movant can afford the costs of proceeding without undue hardship or deprivation of the necessities of life.” Ayers v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Justice, 70 F.3d 1268, 1268 (5th Cir. 1995) (per cu- riam) (citing Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339–40 (1948)); see also, e.g., Benjamin G. v. Bisignano, No. 25-CV-3961 (DJF), 2025 WL 2938511, at *1 (D. Minn. Oct. 16, 2025) (quoting Ayers). “The opportunity to proceed [IFP] is a privilege, not a right.” Weaver v. Pung, 925 F.2d 1097, 1099 n.4 (8th Cir. 1991) (citing Williams v. McKenzie, 834 F.2d 152, 154 (8th Cir. 1987)).

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a litigant must show eligibility for IFP status by sub- mitting an affidavit that “includes a statement of all assets” possessed by the applicant. The District of Minnesota has a standard form for this purpose, titled “Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.” That form requires an applicant to provide specific details regarding (among other things) an applicant’s income, assets, expenses, and dependents. In contrast, the IFP Application here simply says that Mr. Hudson has “[l]ow financial circumstances,”

without providing any supporting detail. Without a sworn statement detailing Mr. Hud- son’s specific income, assets, and expenses, the Court cannot determine whether he quali- fies for IFP status. The IFP Application is therefore denied without prejudice. Mr. Hudson must either file a new application supplying the missing financial in- formation or pay this action’s full filing fee. If he does neither within 21 days of this Or-

der’s date, the Court will recommend dismissing this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). To assist Mr. Hudson, the Court will order the Clerk of Court to send him a copy of the District’s template “Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.” ORDER

Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiff Jose M. Hudson’s “Motion to Proceed” (Dkt. No. 2), con- strued as an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), is DE- NIED without prejudice. 2. Within 21 days of this Order’s date, Mr. Hudson must either (1) pay this action’s filing fee, or (2) submit a new application to proceed IFP in this action. If neither occurs, the Court will recommend dismissing this action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. 3. The Clerk of Court is ordered to send Mr. Hudson a copy of the Dis- trict of Minnesota’s standard form “Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.”

Dated: December 15, 2025 s/ John F. Docherty JOHN F. DOCHERTY United States Magistrate Judge