Robinson v. City of Lubbock Parks & Rec

• Court: District Court, N.D. Texas
• Decided: January 10, 2025
• Docket: 5:24-cv-00276
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUBBOCK DIVISION CRYSTAL ROBINSON, § § Plaintiff, § § § No, 5:24-CV-276-H-BV § CITY OF LUBBOCK PARKS & REC., § Defendant. § FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE! Pro se Plaintiff Crystal Robinson filed this Title VII action along with a request to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). Dkt. Nos. 2, 3, 8. Although she reports that she is unemployed, Robinson also reports that her income and expenses leave her an $1,100- per-month surplus, that her father pays expenses she cannot cover, and she declines to explain how she expects her financial condition to change in the next year, despite the Court’s specific prompting to do so. See Dkt. No. 8. Thus, the undersigned recommends that the district judge deny Rebinson’s amended application to proceed IFP, Dkt. No. 8, and deny-as-moot her original application, Dkt. No. 3. 1. Background Robinson filed an application to proceed IFP when she filed suit, but she failed to respond to all the prompts, and the Court could not adequately evaluate her financial

' Under Special Order 3-251, this case was automatically referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for pretrial management. Dkt. No. 1. Because the undersigned concludes Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis, the undersigned enters these findings, conclusions, and recommendation in accordance with Miscellaneous Order No. 6.

condition. Dkt. Nos. 3, 6. The Court explained the deficiencies and ordered Robinson to file an amended JFP application. Dkt. No. 6. Robinson timely complied. Dkt. No. 8. 2. Discussion Proceeding IFP in a civil case “is a privilege that may be extended or withdrawn.” Birgans y. Louisiana, 411 F. App’x 717, 718 (Sth Cir. 2011) (per curiam); accord Rivera

v. Allin, 144 F.3d 719, 724 (11th Cir. 1998) (“[P]roceeding IFP in a civil case is a privilege, not a right—fundamental or otherwise.”), overruled on other grounds by Jones

v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). Whether to permit or deny an application to proceed IFP is within the sound discretion of the court, and in reviewing the application, the court may evaluate all financial resources available to an applicant. See Prows v. Kastner, 842 F.2d 138, 140 (Sth Cir. 1988) (upholding the district court’s rejection of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and noting that the district court has discretion to consider the applicant’s expenses and income in making such a determination). The court may consider the total monetary resources available to assist the applicant, including a spouse’s income, in making this determination. See id. (holding that 28 U.S.C. § 1915{a) “provide[s] access to federal courts for plaintiffs who lack the financial resources” to pay filing costs). A court may also review and consider whether plaintiff's expenses are discretionary ot mandatory. Id. The Court concludes that Robinson has the financial resources to pay the $405.00 filing fee. First, Robinson receives about $1,600 per month in unemployment benefits but reports monthly living expenses of only $505.00. Dkt. No. 2, at 1-2, 4-5. Robinson’s monthly surplus of about $1,100 more than covers the filing fee. Moreover,

Robinson states that any “extra expenses [are] taken care of by [her] Dad.” /d. at S. Finally, in both her original and amended applications, Robinson responded that she expects her financial condition to change in the next year. Dkt. Nos. 3 at 5; 8 at 5. But despite the Court’s order requiring her to “include a statement explaining the expected change in her income or expenses[,]” Robinson has not done so, Dkt. Nos. 6 at 2; 8 at 5. Given Robinson’s monthly surplus and her failure to provide all the information required by the application, the district judge should deny her motion to proceed IFP because she has failed to adequately demonstrate that she is a pauper to whom the privilege of filing IFP should be extended. See, e.g., Woodards v. Traurig, No. 3:11- CV—2678-L—BH, 2011 WL 6934966, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 22, 2011) (“Because Plaintiff has sufficient income and limited monthly expenses, she will not suffer undue financial hardship after payment of the . . . filing fee, and her application to proceed in forma pauperis should be denied.”), R. & R. adopted by 2011 WL 6934965 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 30, 2011). 3, Recommendation For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that the United States District Judge DENY Robinson’s amended IFP application, Dkt. No. 8, and DENY as moot Robinson’s original application, Dkt. No. 3. The undersigned further recommends that the district judge order Robinson to pay the $405.00 filing fee within fourteen (14) days from the date of any order denying her motion to proceed IFP.

4. Right to Object A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation must file specific written objections within fourteen days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C, § 636(b)(1) (2016); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). To be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding, conclusion, or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge’s Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (Sth Cir. 1996). Dated: January lo. , 2025.

AMANDA ‘AMY’ R. BURCH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE