Washington v. Trade Winds

Filing 3

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING 2 MOTION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis by Plaintiff Ruben Washington, Jr. Plaintiff GRANTED until 8/7/2017 to pay the $400.00 filing fee. Plaintiff CAUTIONED if he does not respond by the deadline, this case may be dismissed. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 7/7/17. (Copy mailed to pro se party).(cer)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
RUBEN WASHINGTON, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
TRADE WINDS,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 2:17-CV-274

OPINION AND ORDER
This

matter

is

before

the

Court

on

the

Employment

Discrimination Complaint and Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
filed by the plaintiff, Ruben Washington, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), on
June 28, 2017.

(DE #1 & DE #2.)

For the reasons set forth below,

Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (DE #2) is DENIED.
This Court GRANTS Plaintiff to and including August 7, 2017, to pay
the $400.00 filing fee and CAUTIONS him that if he does not respond
by that date, this case may be dismissed without further notice for
non-payment of the filing fee.
The in forma pauperis (“IFP”) statute, 28 U.S.C. section 1915,
allows an indigent plaintiff to commence a civil action without
prepaying the administrative costs (e.g. filing fee) of the action.
See 28 U.S.C. section 1915(a)(1); see also Denton v. Hernandez, 504
U.S. 25, 27 (1992).

When presented with an IFP application, the

district court must make two determinations: (1) whether the suit
has sufficient merit; and (2) whether the plaintiff’s poverty level
justifies IFP status.

See 28 U.S.C. section 1915(e)(2); Denton,

504 U.S. at 27; Smith-Bey v. Hosp. Adm’r, 841 F.2d 751, 757 (7th
Cir. 1988).

If a court finds that the suit lacks sufficient merit

or that an inadequate showing of poverty exists, the court must
deny the IFP petition.

See Smith-Bey, 841 F.2d at 757.

In this case, as to the financial prong of the analysis,
Plaintiff, who is not married and does not support any children or
adults, indicates that he is employed and receives $1,500.00 a
month from his employer.

(DE #2.)

He also indicates that he

receives $802.08 per month from a Cook County pension fund and
$776.60 a month in Social Security Disability benefits.

(Id.)

He

claims to have $60.00 in cash on hand and/or in deposit accounts
and zero dollars worth of real estate, cars, jewelry, stocks,
bonds, or other investments.

(Id.)

The federal poverty guideline for a household of one is
$12,060.
2017).

HHS POVERTY GUIDELINES, 82 Fed. Reg. 8831-32 (Jan. 31,
The annualized value of Plaintiff’s employment income of

$18,000, by itself, is well above the federal poverty guideline,
and this does not take into consideration the supplemental reported
income from his pension and disability benefits.

Thus, the Court

finds that Plaintiff is not financially eligible to proceed IFP in
this case, and the motion must be DENIED on that basis.1
1

The Court finds it curious that Plaintiff reports $1,500 a month in
employment income but also states that he receives $776.60 in Social Security
Disability benefits. It would seem that Plaintiff’s monthly employment income
is above the Substantial Gainful Activity limitation for individuals with
disabilities, other than blindness, which is $1,170 for 2017. See Social
Security, Determinations of Substantial Gainful Employment (June 28, 2017,
3:37 PM), https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/sgadet.html.

2

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed
In Forma Pauperis (DE #2) is DENIED.

This Court GRANTS Plaintiff

to and including August 7, 2017, to pay the $400.00 filing fee and
CAUTIONS him that if he does not respond by that date, this case
may be dismissed without further notice for non-payment of the
filing fee.

DATED: July 7, 2017

/s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court

3