Bannister v. Ige et al

Filing 11

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS re 8 - Signed by JUDGE JILL A. OTAKE on 7/15/2020. Because Plaintiff represents that it is impossible to mail his filing fee until he comple tes his quarantine, his deadline to submit the filing fee is July 27, 2020. However, the Court again emphasizes that it will take no action on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction until he pays the filing fee and Def endants are served with the Complaint and summons, which are requirements imposed upon all litigants. Failure to timely pay the filing fee will result in the dismissal of this action. (emt, )COURT 9;S CERTIFICATE of Service - Brock Tyler Bannister served by First Class Mail to the address of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) on July 15, 2020. Modified on 7/15/2020 In light of the Ch ange of Address emailed to the Clerk's Office, the Order was emailed to Mr. Bannister at [e-mail] and will be resent to Mr. Bannister by First Class Mail at 969 Eckerd Drive, Indian Land, SC 29707 on July 16, 2020. (emt, ). Modified on 7/15/2020 (emt, ).

Case 1:20-cv-00305-JAO-RT Document 11 Filed 07/15/20 Page 1 of 4

PageID #: 27

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

BROCK TYLER BANNISTER,
Plaintiff,
vs.

CIVIL NO. 20-00305 JAO-RT
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS

DAVID IGE, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Before the Court is Plaintiff Brock Tyler Bannister’s (“Plaintiff”)
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP Application”), filed July 11,
2020.1 A court may authorize the commencement or prosecution of any suit
without prepayment of fees by a person who submits an affidavit that the person is
unable to pay such fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). “An affidavit in support of an
IFP application is sufficient where it alleges that the affiant cannot pay the court

1

Plaintiff did not sign the IFP Application, which alone justifies striking it. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 11(a) (“Every pleading, written motion, and other paper must be signed .
. . by a party personally if the party is unrepresented. . . . The court must strike an
unsigned paper unless the omission is promptly corrected after being called to the .
. . party’s attention.”). However, the Court elects to address the IFP Application
because it fails on the merits.

Case 1:20-cv-00305-JAO-RT Document 11 Filed 07/15/20 Page 2 of 4

PageID #: 28

costs and still afford the necessities of life.” Escobedo v. Applebees, 787 F.3d
1226, 1234 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Adkins v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., Inc.,
335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948)). Absolute destitution is not required to obtain benefits
under the IFP statute, but “a plaintiff seeking IFP status must allege poverty ‘with
some particularity, definiteness and certainty.’” Id. (citation omitted).
Plaintiff admits that he lacks financial hardship and refuses to provide any
relevant financial information required by the IFP Application. ECF No. 8 at 5 (“I
have no interest in disclosing my finances at this time, and my inability to pay the
filing fee is not due to financial hardship.”). Instead, he appears to argue that he is
entitled to proceed IFP because he is unable to pay the filing fee due to the
“unlawful quarantine” that precludes him from mailing the filing fee per court
procedures. Id. The Court DENIES this baseless IFP Application.
Plaintiff is abusing a process designed for litigants who genuinely cannot
afford to pay the filing fee. IFP Applications are not to be used for situations
where financially secure individuals2 cannot figure out a means to submit the filing
fee. Nor can Plaintiff claim in good faith that the quarantine and the court’s
requirements are preventing him from timely submitting the filing fee. Plaintiff

2

Again, not only has Plaintiff admitted that he does not lack financial resources,
the record confirms this. Plaintiff and his family are here on vacation from South
Carolina for 36 days and spent $10,508.68 on the vacation home they are renting.
Compl. at 1–2.
2

Case 1:20-cv-00305-JAO-RT Document 11 Filed 07/15/20 Page 3 of 4

PageID #: 29

communicated with the clerk’s office and was informed about the requirements for
filing a lawsuit before traveling to Hawai‘i on July 9, 2020.3 Yet he now argues
that he is “under mandatory quarantine, and mailing in the payment would require
[him] to leave the property in order to (i) go to a bank to get a check, and (ii) mail
the check to the court.” ECF No. 10 at 1. The Court finds disingenuous any
contention that Plaintiff lacks supplies and/or the means to mail a check. He could
have mailed the requisite filing fee before he traveled or at a minimum brought
checks with him. Presently feigning incapability based on a situation Plaintiff
himself created undermines his arguments.
Because Plaintiff represents that it is impossible to mail his filing fee until he
completes his quarantine, his deadline to submit the filing fee is July 27, 2020.
However, the Court again emphasizes that it will take no action on Plaintiff’s
Motion for Preliminary Injunction until he pays the filing fee and Defendants are
served with the Complaint and summons, which are requirements imposed upon all
litigants. Failure to timely pay the filing fee will result in the dismissal of this
action.

3

In fact, Plaintiff contemplated filing a lawsuit since June 30, 2020, at latest, as he
emailed the Court complaining about the quarantine and its negative impact on his
Hawai‘i vacation.
3

Case 1:20-cv-00305-JAO-RT Document 11 Filed 07/15/20 Page 4 of 4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

Honolulu, Hawai‘i, July 15, 2020.

CV 20-00305 JAO-RT; Bannister v. Ige, et al.; ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

4

PageID #: 30