NEWMAN v. QSR SOUTHERN GROUP, LLC

Filing 3

ORDER FOR RESPONSE re 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. No later than October 8, 2024, Newman SHALL supplement his IFP motion to clarify whether he received disability payments in the amount of & #036;3,940.00 at varying intervals (e.g., monthly) within the past twelve months or if he received $3,940.00 in total. Newman is warned that failure to fully and timely comply with this Order may result in the dismissal of this action. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC T TREADWELL on 9/19/2024. (kat)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
DANIEL NEWMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
QSR SOUTHERN GROUP, LLC,
Defendant.
__________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-cv-310 (MTT)

ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff Daniel Newman filed this action and contemporaneously moved
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Docs. 1; 2. However, the Court does not
have sufficient information to determine whether Newman is entitled to proceed IFP.
Accordingly, no later than October 8, 2024, Newman SHALL supplement his IFP
motion to clarify whether he received disability payments in the amount of $3,940.00 at
varying intervals (e.g., monthly) within the past twelve months or if he received
$3,940.00 in total. Failure to fully and timely comply with this Order may result in the
dismissal of this action. 1
I. DISCUSSION
When considering a motion to proceed IFP filed under § 1915(a), “[t]he only
determination to be made by the court … is whether the statements in the affidavit
satisfy the requirement of poverty.” Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305,

1 See Brown v. Tallahassee Police Dep’t, 205 F. App’x 802, 802 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(b) and Lopez v. Aransas Cty. Indep. Sch. Dist., 570 F.2d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1978)); see also Bonner v.
City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) (adopting as binding precedent the
decisions of the former Fifth Circuit rendered prior to October 1, 1981).

1307 (11th Cir. 2004). Where a Plaintiff demonstrates economic eligibility to file IFP,
the court should docket the case and then “proceed to the question ... of whether the
asserted claim is frivolous.” Id.
Motions to proceed IFP are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Section 1915(a)
provides:
[A]ny court of the United States may authorize the commencement,
prosecution or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or
appeal therein, without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person
who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such
prisoner possesses 2 that the person is unable to pay such fees or give
security therefor.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). To show poverty, the plaintiff need not show that she is
“absolutely destitute.” Martinez, 364 F.3d at 1307 (quoting Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de
Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 338-40 (1948)). Instead, the affidavit must demonstrate
that the plaintiff, “because of [her] poverty, is unable to pay for the court fees and costs,
and to support and provide necessities for [herself] and [her] dependents.” Martinez,
364 F.3d at 1307. However, this statute “should not be a broad highway into the federal
courts.” Attwood v. Singletary, 105 F.3d 610, 613 (11th Cir. 1997); Mack v. Petty, 2014
WL 3845777, at *1 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 4, 2014). Section 1915(a) “conveys only a privilege
to proceed without payment to only those litigants unable to pay costs without undue
hardship.” Mack, 2014 WL 3845777, at *1 (citing Startti v. United States, 415 F.2d 1115
(5th Cir.1969)). The district court is given wide discretion to decide IFP cases and
should “grant the privilege sparingly,” especially in civil cases for damages. Martinez,
364 F.3d at 1306.
“Despite the statute’s use of the phrase ‘prisoner possesses,’ the affidavit requirement applies to all
persons requesting leave to proceed IFP.” Martinez, 364 F.3d at 1306 n.1.
2

-2-

Newman’s financial affidavit states that he is unemployed and receives $0.00 in
monthly gross pay or take-home wages. Doc. 2 at 1. Newman claims the only source
of income he has received in the past twelve months is “V.A. Disability pay” in the
amount of $3,940.00. Id. But it is unclear if Newman received disability payments in
the amount of $3,940.00 at varying intervals within the past twelve months or if he
received $3,940.00 in total. 3 Newman claims that his only other financial assets include
$175.00 in a checking or savings account and a vehicle worth approximately $15,000.
Id. Newman also claims to have $12,000 in credit card debt. Id.
Accordingly, the Court does not have sufficient information to determine whether
Newman is entitled to proceed IFP.
II. CONCLUSION
No later than October 8, 2024, Newman SHALL supplement his IFP motion to
clarify whether he received disability payments in the amount of $3,940.00 at varying
intervals (e.g., monthly) within the past twelve months or if he received $3,940.00 in
total. Newman is warned that failure to fully and timely comply with this Order may
result in the dismissal of this action.
SO ORDERED, this 19th day of September, 2024.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Form A0 240 (“Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Short Form)”)
simply asks the affiant to “describe each source of money” from a list of specified sources of income and,
if applicable, to “state the amount received” in “the past 12 months.” Doc. 2 at 1.

3

-3-