Bunch v. Demotte Drugs Inc
OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis 2 is DENIED. This Court GRANTS Plaintiff to and including 8/7/2017, to pay the $400.00 filing fee and CAUTIONS her that if she does not respond by that date, this case may be dismissed without further notice for non-payment of the filing fee. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 7/7/17. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(jss)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
DEMOTTE DRUGS, INC,
OPINION AND ORDER
Discrimination Complaint and Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
filed by the plaintiff, Tamara Bunch (“Plaintiff”), on June 29,
(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 her that if she 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
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 but supports one adult child,
indicates that she is employed and receives $2,300.00 a month from
She also indicates that she received a
one-time short term disability payment of $7,000 in the past twelve
Plaintiff claims to have $73.00 in cash on hand
and/or in deposit accounts and zero dollars worth of real estate,
cars, jewelry, stocks, bonds, or other investments.
The federal poverty guideline for a household of two is
HHS POVERTY GUIDELINES, 82 Fed. Reg. 8831-32 (Jan. 31,
The annualized value of Plaintiff’s employment income of
$27,600, by itself, is well above the federal poverty guideline,
and this does not take into consideration the supplemental reported
income from her short term 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.
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 her that if she does not respond by that date, this case
may be dismissed without further notice for non-payment of the
DATED: July 7, 2017
/s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?