Shomari Bowens v. City of Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Rashida Hill, and Michael Wolf, and John and Jane Doe 1–10

D. Minnesota

Shomari Bowens v. City of Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Rashida Hill, and Michael Wolf, and John and Jane Doe 1–10

DecidedJanuary 15, 2026

Docket0:26-cv-00268

StatusUnknown

This text of Shomari Bowens v. City of Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Rashida Hill, and Michael Wolf, and John and Jane Doe 1–10 (Shomari Bowens v. City of Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Rashida Hill, and Michael Wolf, and John and Jane Doe 1–10) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Shomari Bowens v. City of Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Rashida Hill, and Michael Wolf, and John and Jane Doe 1–10, (mnd 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Shomari Bowens, Case No. 26-cv-0268 (JMB/SGE)

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

City of Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Rashida Hill, and Michael Wolf, and John and Jane Doe 1–10,

Defendants.

This case is before the Court on Plaintiff Shomari Bowens’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Dkt. No. 2 (“IFP Application”), and accompanying declaration, Dkt. 3 (“Bowens Declaration”). For the reasons below, the Court denies the application without prejudice. “The central question [when assessing an application to proceed in forma pauperis (‘IFP’)] 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 curiam) (citing Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339–40 (1948)); see also, e.g., Mays v. Glob. Health Link, No. 25-CV-4676 (DWF/DJF), 2025 WL 3755670, at *1 (D. Minn. Dec. 29, 2025) (quoting Ayers). Bowens reports receiving $3,000 per month in income. See Bowens Decl. 1. Bow- ens states that this income is “inconsistent and unreliable,” but because he indicates no dependents, his reported income exceeds 200 percent of the federal poverty line for one- person families in the State of Minnesota. See generally IFP Appl., Bowens Decl. On this record, the Court cannot find that denying Bowers IFP status would cause undue hardship or deprive him of life’s necessities. The Court therefore denies the IFP Application.

The Court is denying the IFP Application without prejudice, however, meaning that Bowens can file a new IFP application if he wants and he believes additional information would strengthen his application. Alternatively, he may pay this action’s standard filing fee. If he does neither, however, the Court will recommend dismissing this action without prejudice, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), for failure to prosecute.

ORDER Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff Shomari Bowens’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Dkt. 2, is DENIED without prejudice. 2. Within 21 days of this Order’s date, Plaintiff must either (1) pay this action’s filing fee, or (2) submit a new IFP application. If he does neither, the Court will recommend dismissing this action under Fed- eral Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Dated: January 15, 2026 s/ Shannon G. Elkins SHANNON G. ELKINS United States Magistrate Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Shomari Bowens, Case No. 26-cv-0268 (JMB/SGE)

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

City of Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Rashida Hill, and Michael Wolf, and John and Jane Doe 1–10,

Defendants.

This case is before the Court on Plaintiff Shomari Bowens’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Dkt. No. 2 (“IFP Application”), and accompanying declaration, Dkt. 3 (“Bowens Declaration”). For the reasons below, the Court denies the application without prejudice. “The central question [when assessing an application to proceed in forma pauperis (‘IFP’)] 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 curiam) (citing Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339–40 (1948)); see also, e.g., Mays v. Glob. Health Link, No. 25-CV-4676 (DWF/DJF), 2025 WL 3755670, at *1 (D. Minn. Dec. 29, 2025) (quoting Ayers). Bowens reports receiving $3,000 per month in income. See Bowens Decl. 1. Bow- ens states that this income is “inconsistent and unreliable,” but because he indicates no dependents, his reported income exceeds 200 percent of the federal poverty line for one- person families in the State of Minnesota. See generally IFP Appl., Bowens Decl. On this record, the Court cannot find that denying Bowers IFP status would cause undue hardship or deprive him of life’s necessities. The Court therefore denies the IFP Application.

The Court is denying the IFP Application without prejudice, however, meaning that Bowens can file a new IFP application if he wants and he believes additional information would strengthen his application. Alternatively, he may pay this action’s standard filing fee. If he does neither, however, the Court will recommend dismissing this action without prejudice, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), for failure to prosecute.

ORDER Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff Shomari Bowens’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Dkt. 2, is DENIED without prejudice. 2. Within 21 days of this Order’s date, Plaintiff must either (1) pay this action’s filing fee, or (2) submit a new IFP application. If he does neither, the Court will recommend dismissing this action under Fed- eral Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. Dated: January 15, 2026 s/ Shannon G. Elkins SHANNON G. ELKINS United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Shomari Bowens v. City of Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Rashida Hill, and Michael Wolf, and John and Jane Doe 1–10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shomari-bowens-v-city-of-minneapolis-hennepin-county-rashida-hill-and-mnd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack