Miller v. Branham et al

Filing 3

ORDERED that within 14 days this Order is served, Miller shall file a new IFP application. ( Compliance due by 1/25/2016.) Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 1/11/16. (wwp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
SAVANNAH DIVISION
DOMINIC MILLER,
Plaintiff,
V.

Case No. CV416-008
CAROL BRANRAM and MARY
SUSAN FITZGERALD,
Defendants.

ORDER
Proceeding pro Se, plaintiff Dominic Miller seeks a writ of
mandamus directing (1) a state agency to cease collecting child support
payments, and (2) the Chatham County, Georgia jail to release him from
custody. Doe. 1. He also moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(IFP) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Doe. 2. While a plaintiff need not be
absolutely destitute in order to proceed IFP, Adkins v. E.I. Dupont de
Nemours, 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948), the fact that financing his own
litigation may cause some difficulty is not sufficient to relieve him of the
obligation to pay his own way where it is possible to do so without undue
hardship. Id. at 339-40.

On his IFP application, Miller claims a $400 per week income. Doc.
2 at 2. He also apparently owns three vehicles.

Id.

His declared

expenses include standard utilities, a title pawn, and support for two
minor children.

Id.

Miller also includes as an expense the $1,750

monthly rent for his body shop. Id.
Absent contrary evidence, the Court presumes, as is typically the
case, that people pay commercial rents with business, not personal,
income. For Miller, that assumption leaves utilities, a title pawn, and
supporting two children as monthly expenses. Unless he lives in his body
shop, however, Miller also must pay rent. Yet, he never states how much
he pays for the rent, much less utilities, the title pawn, or his children.
Wary of such discrepancies and cognizant of how easily one may
consume a public resource with no financial skin in the game,' this Court
demands supplemental information from IFP movants who make a
dubious showing of indigency.

Lister v. Dep't of Treasury, 408 F.3d

1309 1 1313 (10th Cir. 2005) (court did not abuse its discretion by denying
status to Social Security benefits claimant seeking judicial review of

1

"[A] litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public . . . lacks
an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive
lawsuits." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989).
2

Commissioner's benefits denial; claimant, after having been specifically
instructed on how to establish IFP status, failed to fill out proper forms
or otherwise provide court with requisite financial information); Jackson
v. Tucker, 2014 WL 851438 at * 1 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 5, 2014) ("After further
review, the Court is not satisfied with his response. It undeniably costs
money to live, and Jackson not only swears he has zero assets of any
kind, but that he also supports two children. That's plainly not
credible.") (cite omitted).
To that end, within 14 days of the date this Order is served, Miller
shall file a new IFP application, 2 and shall disclose to the Court the
following information:
(1)

How much he spends each month for basic living expenses such
as food, clothing, and utilities, and the dollar value of any public
or private assistance he may receive;

(2)

How he pays his body shop rent (i.e., with personal or business
income) and whether he also pays rent (and if so, how much) for
a residence;

(3)

How much he pays towards his title pawn and to support his two
children.

2

Failure to file a new application will result in a failure-to-follow-a-court-order
dismissal recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); L.R. 41(b).
3

(4)

Whether he possesses a cellular telephone, TV set, and any home
electronics equipment (include estimated value and related
carrying expenses, such as carrier and subscription fees);

(5)

Whether he has any credit or debit cards;

(6)

Whether he anticipates any future income (within the next
year); and

(7)

A list of any other cases showing an indigency-based, filing fee
reduction or waiver granted by any other court (include the full
case name, case number and the name of the court granting
same).
Answering these points will better illuminate plaintiff's true

financial condition. In that regard, he must again declare the facts she
pleads to be true under penalty of perjury.'
SO ORDERED, thisZdayof January, 2016.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

The Court tolerates no lies. Ross v. Fogam, 2011 WL 2516221 at * 1 (S.D. Ga. June
23, 2011) ("Ross, a convicted criminal, chose to burden this Court with falsehoods,
not honesty. The Court thus rejects Ross's show cause explanation, as it is clear that
he purposefully chose to disguise his filing history and financial status."); see also
Moss v. Premiere Credit, LLC, CV411-123, doc. 54 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 6, 2013) (Eleventh
Circuit Order: "Moss's [IFP on appeal] motion is DENIED because her allegation of
poverty appears to be untrue in light of her financial affidavit and filings in the
district court."). And those that do lie face consequences. See United States v.
Dickerson, CR608.36, doe. 1 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 11, 2008) (§ 2255 movant indicted for
perjury for knowingly lying in his motion seeking collateral relief from his
conviction).
4