Joseph Zito v. Transworld Systems, Inc., et al.

D. Massachusetts

Joseph Zito v. Transworld Systems, Inc., et al.

DecidedDecember 22, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-11977

StatusUnknown

This text of Joseph Zito v. Transworld Systems, Inc., et al. (Joseph Zito v. Transworld Systems, Inc., et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Joseph Zito v. Transworld Systems, Inc., et al., (D. Mass. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

) JOSEPH ZITO, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 25-11977-MJJ v. )

) TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS, INC., et al., ) ) Defendant. ) )

ORDER

JOUN, D.J.

In his “Preliminary Ex Parte Declarative Exception Objection Taken To The Court’s July 28, 2025 Procedural Order” [Doc. No. 5], pro se plaintiff Joseph Zito (“Mr. Zito”) argues that the Court cannot require him to disclose his financial information as part of his request to proceed in forma pauperis. This argument is incorrect. Subject to some exceptions not factually relevant here, proceeding in forma pauperis in a civil action is a privilege, not a right, see Daker v. Jackson, 942 F.3d 1252, 1257 (11th Cir. 2019); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1180 (9th Cir. 1999), and the decision “[w]hether to grant or deny in forma pauperis status is within the sound discretion of the trial court,” Scherer v. Kansas, 263 Fed. App’x 667, 669 (10th Cir. 2008). Federal law requires that a party seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis submit a “statement of all assets such prisoner possesses” showing that “the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(1). Despite the statute’s use of the phrase “such prisoner,” the affidavit requirement applies to all persons requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See Lister v. Dep’t of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005); Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305, 1306 n.1 (11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). The use of the word “prisoner” in 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(1) appears to be a typographical error. See Douris v. Middletown Tp., 293 Fed. App’x 130, 132 n.1 (3d Cir. 2008). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that, if Mr. Zito wishes to proceed with this action, he

must pay the $405 filing fee or file a completed and signed Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Failure to do so within twenty-one (21) days will result in dismissal of this action without prejudice. SO ORDERED. /s/ Myong J. Joun Myong J. Joun United States District Judge Dated: December 22, 2025

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

) JOSEPH ZITO, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 25-11977-MJJ v. )

) TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS, INC., et al., ) ) Defendant. ) )

ORDER

JOUN, D.J.

In his “Preliminary Ex Parte Declarative Exception Objection Taken To The Court’s July 28, 2025 Procedural Order” [Doc. No. 5], pro se plaintiff Joseph Zito (“Mr. Zito”) argues that the Court cannot require him to disclose his financial information as part of his request to proceed in forma pauperis. This argument is incorrect. Subject to some exceptions not factually relevant here, proceeding in forma pauperis in a civil action is a privilege, not a right, see Daker v. Jackson, 942 F.3d 1252, 1257 (11th Cir. 2019); Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1180 (9th Cir. 1999), and the decision “[w]hether to grant or deny in forma pauperis status is within the sound discretion of the trial court,” Scherer v. Kansas, 263 Fed. App’x 667, 669 (10th Cir. 2008). Federal law requires that a party seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis submit a “statement of all assets such prisoner possesses” showing that “the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(1). Despite the statute’s use of the phrase “such prisoner,” the affidavit requirement applies to all persons requesting leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See Lister v. Dep’t of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005); Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305, 1306 n.1 (11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam). The use of the word “prisoner” in 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(1) appears to be a typographical error. See Douris v. Middletown Tp., 293 Fed. App’x 130, 132 n.1 (3d Cir. 2008). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that, if Mr. Zito wishes to proceed with this action, he

must pay the $405 filing fee or file a completed and signed Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Failure to do so within twenty-one (21) days will result in dismissal of this action without prejudice. SO ORDERED. /s/ Myong J. Joun Myong J. Joun United States District Judge Dated: December 22, 2025

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Joseph Zito v. Transworld Systems, Inc., et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/joseph-zito-v-transworld-systems-inc-et-al-mad-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack