Opinion

Brown v. O'Malley

Court
District Court, D. Minnesota
Filed
Nov 15, 2024
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 33.0%

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Courtney B., Case No. 24-CV-4172 (TNL)

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER

Martin J. O’Malley, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Courtney B. brings this action appealing the denial of his application for

social security benefits. Plaintiff did not pay the filing fee for this matter, instead applying

for in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status. See ECF No. 3. That IFP application is now before

the Court and must be considered before any other action may be taken in this matter.

“The central question is whether the movant can afford the costs of proceeding

without undue hardship or deprivation of the necessities of life.” Ayers v. Texas Dep’t of

Criminal Justice, 70 F.3d 1268, 1268 (5th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). The IFP application

shows that Plaintiff herself has no income, but her spouse earns approximately $8,000 per

month and possesses substantial liquid and illiquid assets, including $8,000 in savings, a

$70,000 truck, a $80,000 camper, and a $400,000 home. See ECF No. 3 at 2-3. By all

indications, Courtney B. shares assets and income with her spouse, see ECF No. 3 at 4

(showing all expenses of Courtney B. paid by spouse), reflecting that the spouse’s income

and assets may also be fairly attributed to Courtney B. in determining whether she qualifies

for IFP status, see Fridman v. City of New York, 195 F. Supp. 2d 534, 537 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)

(“In assessing an application to proceed in forma pauperis, a court may consider the

resources that the applicant has or ‘can get’ from those who ordinarily provide the applicant

with the ‘necessities of life,’ such as ‘from a spouse, parent, adult sibling or other next

friend’” (quoting Williams v. Spencer, 455 F. Supp. 205, 208-09 (D. Md. 1978)).1

The Court concludes that the familial income and assets of Plaintiff support a

finding that payment of the filing fee in this matter would not amount to an undue hardship.

The IFP application is denied on that basis. Courtney B. must pay the $405.00 filing fee

for this action within 21 days of the date of this order, failing which it will be recommended

that this matter be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 41(b).

ORDER

Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT

IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The application to proceed in forma pauperis of plaintiff Courtney B. [ECF

No. 3] is DENIED.

2. Plaintiff must pay the $405.00 filing fee for this matter within 21 days of the

date of this order, failing which it will be recommended that this matter be

dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.

[Continued on next page.]

1 If this Court is mistaken and the finances of Courtney B. and her spouse are not

substantially intertwined, then Courtney B. may reapply for IFP status with an amended

IFP application that clearly reflects only the income and assets that are reasonably

available to her.

s/ Tony N. Leung

Dated: November 15, 2024

__________________________________

Tony N. Leung

United States Magistrate Judge

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.