Tilmon v. Polo Ralph Lauren Factory Store
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
MELBA A. TILMON
POLO RALPH LAUREN FACTORY STORE, )
Case No. 17-2383-JAR
The pro se plaintiff, Melba A. Tilmon, has filed a motion (ECF No. 9) asking the
undersigned U.S. Magistrate Judge, James P. O’Hara, to reconsider his recommendation to
the presiding U.S. District Judge, Julie A. Robinson, that plaintiff’s motion to proceed with
this action in forma pauperis (ECF No. 3) be denied (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration is denied.
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration sets forth information about her financial status
that was not included in her verified affidavit of financial status (ECF No. 3-1). After
considering this new information (and ignoring the fact that it is not verified, i.e., stated
under penalty of perjury), the undersigned continues to recommend denial of plaintiff’s
motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
First, plaintiff states she provides occasional financial assistance to her two adult
children who live out of her house. The undersigned views such assistance as discretionary;
plaintiff may choose not to provide such assistance. Second, plaintiff states she has
additional “credit obligations.” These obligations appear to stem largely from discretionary
purchases, such as study-abroad trips and furniture. Regardless, plaintiff states she pays
$193 per month on these additional obligations. Adding this amount to her previously
reported expenses, plaintiff’s total monthly expenses come to around $1,330. Plaintiff has
reported her net income is approximately $1,950 a month. Thus, plaintiff’s net income
exceeds her obligations by more than $600. In addition, as discussed in the report and
recommendation, plaintiff has cash on hand and value in two vehicles.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied.
Dated July 20, 2017, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ James P. O’Hara
James P. O’Hara
U. S. Magistrate Judge
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?