Prince v. Chicago Public Schools et al

Filing 204

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr on 3/14/2012: For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal 202 is respectfully denied. The Clerk is directed to notify the part ies and the Court of Appeals of this order (see Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4)(A)) and Plaintiff is advised that he may either pay the filing fee or file in the Court of Appeals a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (see Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5). Mailed notice(nf, )

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Robert M. Dow, Jr.

CASE NUMBER

09 C 2010

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

3/14/2012

Prince vs. Chicago Public Schools

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal [202] is
respectfully denied. The Clerk is directed to notify the parties and the Court of Appeals of this order (see Fed.
R. App. P. 24(a)(4)(A)) and Plaintiff is advised that he may either pay the filing fee or file in the Court of
Appeals a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (see Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5)).

O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal [202], with attached
financial affidavit. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24 and the federal in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(1), provide the controlling standards and procedures for consideration of IFP status on appeal. FRAP
24(a)(1) directs the party seeking to proceed IFP on appeal to file a motion and supporting affidavit in the district
court, which Plaintiff has done. A special rule applies pursuant to FRAP 24(a)(3) if Plaintiff has proceeded IFP
in the district court, but that rule does not apply here because Plaintiff paid the filing fee and did not request leave
to proceed IFP in the district court.
The Committee Notes to FRAP 24 state that “[a]uthority to allow prosecution of an appeal in forma pauperis is
vested in ‘[a]ny court of the United States” by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).” Section 1915(a)(1) is designed to ensure
that indigent litigants have meaningful access to the federal courts. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324
(1989). It allows a litigant to pursue a case (or an appeal) in federal court without fees and costs provided that
the litigant submits an affidavit which asserts an inability “to pay such costs or give security therefore,” so long
as the action is neither frivolous nor malicious, states a claim upon which relief may be granted, and does not
seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See generally 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
The Court relies on the financial affidavit filed along with the in forma pauperis application to assess a party’s
claim to indigency. In order to file and proceed on a lawsuit in forma pauperis – that is, without paying the filing
fee – “a plaintiff’s income must be at or near the poverty level.” Bulls v. Marsh, 1989 WL 51170, at *1 (N.D.
Ill. May 5, 1989); see also Zaun v. Dobbin, 628 F.2d 990, 992 (7th Cir. 1980). In assessing whether a party has
established indigency and thus qualifies for IFP status, many judges in this district use the poverty guidelines
promulgated by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (available at
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml). The HHS poverty guidelines for 2012 for the 48 contiguous states
and the District of Columbia set the poverty level for a family of one at an annual income level of $11,170. For
a family of two, the amount increases to $15,130.
09C2010 Prince vs. Chicago Public Schools

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
Plaintiff reports in his affidavit that he receives $2,600 per month in retirement benefits based on his lengthy
tenure as a teacher in the Chicago Public Schools; that amounts to $31,200 annually. He also reports a home with
an estimated value of $71,000 on which he has no mortgage payments and a vehicle (a 2005 Lincoln Town Car)
on which he makes a monthly payment of more than $600. Plaintiff’s monthly budget reflects a slight net
positive monthly cash flow of approximately $200. He states that his sister relies on him for support. Although
Plaintiff does not specify how much money he provides his sister each month, the Court will assume for purposes
of this motion that Plaintiff’s sister essentially is part of his household for financial purposes, and thus the Court
will credit Plaintiff with being financially responsible for a family of two under the HHS guidelines.
Even making that assumption, however, the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiff is indigent within the meaning
of Section 1915 and FRAP 24. After giving Plaintiff full credit for supporting his sister as if she were a member
of his household, Plaintiff’s financial affidavit establishes that his income level still is more than 200% of the
HHS guidelines. To be sure, the Court treats those guidelines as guidelines, not as bright line rules, and takes
into account every applicant’s particular circumstances in applying the guidelines. The Court also gives the
benefit of the doubt to applicants in close cases – an applicant whose income is at 125% or even 150% of the
HHS guidelines sometimes may qualify depending on what the financial affidavit as a whole indicates in the way
of extenuating circumstances. But here, not only does Plaintiff have an income level of more than twice the HHS
guideline, his retirement income appears to be steady, his house is paid for, and he owns (and makes substantial
payments on) a relatively high end vehicle. In these circumstances, the Court cannot find that Plaintiff qualifies
as “indigent” under any reasonable definition of that term. If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with his appeal, he may
either pay the $455 filing fee or file a motion in the Court of Appeals requesting leave to proceed on appeal in
forma pauperis. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5).

09C2010 Prince vs. Chicago Public Schools

Page 2 of 2