Dunaway

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION (DAYTON)

ANTHONY M. DUNAWAY SR., : Case No. 3:26-cv-00116

:

Plaintiff, : District Judge Michael J. Newman

: Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry

vs. :

:

CITY OF MIAMISBURG, OHIO, et al.,

:

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO DENY IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS

Anthony M. Dunaway Sr. recently submitted a civil rights Complaint against the

City of Miamisburg (and others) to this Court.1 The case has been assigned to District

Judge Michael J. Newman. Certain matters have been referred to the undersigned

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and this Court’s General Order No.

DAY 22-01.

Plaintiff Dunaway is proceeding without the assistance of counsel. He has asked to

proceed in forma pauperis (or “IFP”) in this case and without prepaying the fees to file it.

1 It appears that Plaintiff has filed six cases in this Court:

1. Dunaway v. Montgomery County, Ohio, et al., No. 3:25-cv-00401-TMR-PBS

2. Dunaway v. Wallace, et al., No. 3:26-cv-00007-WHR-PBS

3. Dunaway v. Montgomery County Board of Commissioners, et al., No. 3:26-cv-00017-WHR-CHG

4. Dunaway v. Wallace, et al., No. 3:26-cv-00033-MJN-PBS

5. Dunaway v. Schiff, et al., No. 3:26-cv-00095-MJN-PBS

6. Dunaway v. City of Miamisburg, Ohio, et al., No. 3:26-cv-116-MJN-CHG

This case is the sixth of the six cases. Some of the cases may be related. See S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 3.1(b).

(Doc. No. 1.) For the reasons explained below, the undersigned Magistrate Judge

RECOMMENDS that the Court DENY Plaintiff’s application to proceed IFP and

ORDER him to pay $405 to proceed with this case.2

“Anyone who files a lawsuit in federal court presumptively must pay a filing fee.”

Crump v. Blue, 121 F.4th 1108, 1110 (6th Cir. 2024) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a)).

However, a plaintiff “who cannot pay the fee may ask to proceed ‘in forma pauperis,’ a

status that allows the litigant to pay the fee over time or sometimes not at all.” Crump,

121 F.4th at 1110 (citing § 1915(a)-(b)).

“Proceeding in forma pauperis is a privilege and not a right.” Ohio v. Ealy, No.

1:09-cv-245, 2009 WL 1118704, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 24, 2009) (citing Wilson v.

Yaklich, 148 F.3d 596, 603 (6th Cir. 1998)). A litigant need not be absolutely destitute to

be granted in forma pauperis status. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S.

331, 339 (1948). Instead, an applicant must show that “because of his [or her] poverty,”

they cannot pay the fee and continue to afford the necessities of life. Id. Additionally, “[a]

plaintiff seeking in forma pauperis standing must respond fully to the questions on the

Court’s in forma pauperis form.” West v. AFSCME Bldg. Corp., No. 2:22-cv-2235, 2022

WL 18142399, at *1 (W.D. Tenn. Apr. 14, 2022).

Whether to grant IFP status is within the Court’s discretion, and the burden of

convincing the Court is on the applicant. Dotson v. Colvin, No. 7:16-cv-198, 2016 U.S.

2 The total fee amount is $405, which consists of a $350 filing fee and a $55 administrative fee. See 28

U.S.C. § 1914; Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, District Court Miscellaneous Fee Schedule,

available at https://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/fees/district-court-miscellaneous-fee-schedule (last

visited June 30, 2026).

Dist. LEXIS 205449, at *2 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 7, 2016). Courts “generally consider an

applicant’s employment, annual income and expenses, and any other property or assets

the individual possesses” when considering an IFP application. Crochran Through

Shields v. Columbus City Sch., No. 2:15-cv-632, 2017 WL 11634750, at *1 (S.D. Ohio

Nov. 20, 2017). However:

Courts have routinely denied in forma pauperis status to litigants who have

significant income and assets such as a home and vehicles, even if it would

require some financial sacrifice in order for the applicant to pay the filing

fee. … In forma pauperis status is usually reserved either for indigent

prisoners or for persons who subsist on small fixed-income payments such

as social security, unemployment compensation, or public assistance and

who would truly be required to forego food, shelter, clothing, or some other

necessity were they to devote any of their scant resources to paying a

judicial filing fee.

Bush v. Ohio Dep’t of Rehab. & Corr., No. 2:05-cv-667, 2007 WL 4365381, at *1 (S.D.

Ohio Dec. 10, 2007).

Plaintiff has filed one IFP Application in this case, signed under penalty of

perjury. (Doc. No. 1.) He has filed several other applications in his other five cases,

including two Applications in a separate case pending before the undersigned. See

Dunaway v. Montgomery County Board of Commissioners, et al., No. 3:26-cv-00017-

WHR-CHG. On July 13, 2026, the undersigned recommended that this Court deny

Plaintiff’s IFP applications in that case because he was not completely forthcoming about

his financial status. (See Report and Recommendation, Doc. No. 5 in Case No. 3:26-cv-

17 [noting that Plaintiff appears to own at least one business and has put directly

contradictory facts into the record about his income, expenses, and assets].)

The same concern exists in this case. In particular, the undersigned notes that

Plaintiff claims in his IFP Application to pay a $1,200 monthly housing expense, but has

elsewhere confirmed that he “resides with Grandmother” and has “No Rent obligation.”

(See, e.g., Doc. No. 4 in Case No 3:26-cv-17.) His address, however, has not changed

while this case has been pending. (Compare Doc. No. 1-1 at PageID 4 in Case No. 3:26-

cv-116 with Doc. No. 4 at PageID 25 in Case No. 3:26-cv-17 [both listing Plaintiff’s

address as 3966 Belvo Road].)

When the housing expense is disregarded, Plaintiff’s IFP Application in this case

reflects that he has sufficient funds to pay the one-time cost of $405 without sacrificing

the basic necessities of life. (See Doc. No. 1 at PageID 1-2.3) See Muehlfeld v. Comm’r of

SSA, No. 3:23-cv-225, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69271, at *5-6 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 14, 2023)

(collecting cases) (“Financial ability has been found, and thus IFP denied, where income

and assets exceed monthly expenses.”).

Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the Court DENY Plaintiff’s

IFP Application and ORDER him to pay $405 by a date certain if he wishes to proceed

in this case.

Plaintiff may file objections to this recommendation as described in the section

below. He is REMINDED that he must promptly notify the Court if his mailing address

changes while this case is pending.

3 If Plaintiff’s monthly income is $2,358, and the Court subtracts his other reported monthly bills of $303,

$130, $305, $208, and $154.82, Plaintiff is left with over $1,200 each month.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.

s/ Caroline H. Gentry

Caroline H. Gentry

United States Magistrate Judge

DEADLINE TO FILE OBJECTIONS

In accordance with Rule 72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any

party may file and serve specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation

(“R&R”) within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy. A party may respond

to another party’s objections within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy. If

necessary, the objecting party must promptly arrange for transcribing the record, or

whatever portions of it to which the parties agree or the Magistrate Judge considers

sufficient. If proper objections are timely filed, then the District Judge will conduct a de

novo review of the challenged portion(s) of the R&R. Failure to file timely objections

may forfeit rights on appeal. See U.S. v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947, 949-50 (6th Cir. 1981).