Taylor v. Rodriguez

CourtDistrict Court, D. Connecticut
DecidedJune 3, 2025
Docket3:25-cv-00484
StatusUnknown

This text of Taylor v. Rodriguez (Taylor v. Rodriguez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Taylor v. Rodriguez, (D. Conn. 2025).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

Edward Taylor,

Plaintiff, Civil No. 3:25-cv-00484 (SFR)

v.

Nick Rodriguez, et al.,

Defendants. June 3, 2025

RULING AND ORDER ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

This is a prison civil rights lawsuit brought by Edward Taylor, an inmate at the MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institute. With his complaint, he filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) – that is, without paying the filing fee. (ECF No. 12.) Ordinarily, to initiate a complaint in federal court, plaintiffs must pay $405 in filing and administrative fees. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914. However, indigent prisoners may proceed without paying these fees in advance. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). District courts may authorize commencement of an action “without prepayment of fees . . . by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement . . . that the person is unable to pay such fees.” Id.; see also Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S. 532, 534 (2015) (concluding that plaintiffs who qualify for IFP status “may commence a civil action without prepaying fees”). When a plaintiff seeks leave to proceed IFP, the court must determine whether he has demonstrated sufficient economic need to proceed without prepaying the required filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). To demonstrate economic need sufficient to justify IFP status, a plaintiff does not need to prove absolute destitution. Potnick v. E. State Hosp., 701 F.2d 243, 244 (2d Cir. 1983) (per curiam). He does, however, need to show that he “cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for the costs and still be able to provide himself and his dependents with the necessities of life.” Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). To demonstrate sufficient need, the plaintiff must submit a signed affidavit of his financial assets. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). In addition, he must submit “a certified copy of the trust fund

account statement . . . for the prisoner for the 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). To ensure the authenticity of the trust fund statement, the certification must be “obtained from the appropriate official of each prison at which the prisoner is or was confined.” Id. In this case, Mr. Taylor is unable to pay the $405 filing and administrative fee. His trust account statement shows a balance of $100.91 as of March 23, 2025. He has no employment, and his only income comes from small deposits from family members. Further, his trust account statements from the six months prior to filing do not exceed $176.49. He followed the process laid out in the statute and submitted all relevant materials to demonstrate his qualification to

proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Taylor’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

/s/ Thomas O. Farrish Hon. Thomas O. Farrish United States Magistrate Judge

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Taylor v. Rodriguez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-rodriguez-ctd-2025.