Creamer v. ESIS Claims Unit et al

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER taking under advisement 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis pending submission, on or before November 8, 2011, by Plaintiff of additional information identified in order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale on 10/18/2011. Mailed to pro se party Marjorie Creamer by certified mail. (df)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
MARJORIE A. CREAMER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ESIS CLAIMS UNIT,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 11-4110-WEB-KGG

ORDER ON IFP STATUS
Plaintiff Marjorie Creamer filed a federal court Complaint alleging products
liability against a Michigan corporation. In conjunction with her Complaint,
Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (IFP
Application, Doc. 3, sealed), with an accompanying Affidavit of Financial Status
(Doc. 4, sealed). Having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion, as well as her Complaint, the
Court is prepared to rule.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a federal court may authorize commencement of
an action without prepayment of fees, costs, etc., by a person who lacks financial
means. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). In so doing, the court considers the affidavit of
financial status included with the application. See id.

There is a liberal policy toward permitting proceedings in forma pauperis
when necessary to ensure that the courts are available to all citizens, not just those
who can afford to pay. See generally, Yellen v. Cooper, 828 F.2d 1471 (10th Cir.
1987). In construing the application and affidavit, courts generally seek to
compare an applicant’s monthly expenses to monthly income. See Patillo v. N.
Am. Van Lines, Inc., No. 02-2162, 2002 WL 1162684, at *1 (D.Kan. Apr. 15,
2002); Webb v. Cessna Aircraft, No. 00-2229, 2000 WL 1025575, at *1 (D.Kan.
July 17, 2000) (denying motion because “Plaintiff is employed, with monthly
income exceeding her monthly expenses by approximately $600.00”).
According to her supporting financial affidavit, Plaintiff is 54-years-old.
Under Section B., where Plaintiff is to indicate she is single, married, separated, or
divorced, Plaintiff marks “single,” but then also writes in “other” with a
corresponding checkmark and no other explanation or clarification. (Doc. 4,
sealed, at 1.) The Court is justifiably confused as to Plaintiff’s marital status. She
does not, however, list a spouse’s name or spouse’s employment; she also lists no
dependents. (Id., at 1-2.) She crosses out the sections for current or former
employment. (Id., at 2-3.) The only amount she lists as a source of income is a
small, monthly payment of Social Security benefits. (Id., at 5.)
Plaintiff does not own real property and pays a small amount for her
2

monthly rent. (Id.) She has one modest automobile, which apparently is the
subject of her lawsuit and on which she is still making payments. (Id., at 4.) She
lists no cash on hand. (Id.) In the blanks allowed for standard, listed monthly
expenses, Plaintiff simply writes in “1200.00" and “150.00" diagonally across the
entries for groceries/gas/electric and phone/water/car insurance. (Id., at 5.) Suffice
it to say, the Court has no idea how much Plaintiff is paying for specific monthly
bills and, thus, no real way of determining whether those amounts are reasonable.
She also lists a significant amount of credit card debt as well as an “unknown
amount” of medical bills. (Id., at 5-6.) She filed for bankruptcy in 2004 or 2005.
(Id., at 6.)
Given the nonspecific and incomplete nature of the information contained in
Plaintiff’s financial affidavit, the Court does not have sufficient information to
determine Plaintiff’s true financial status. The Court does not know the meaning
of “other” in regard to Plaintiff’s marital status. The Court is uncertain whether
Plaintiff has ever had a job of any kind. If the only income she receives is the
modest Social Security benefits, Plaintiff’s monthly expenses exceed this income
by over $1,000.00 with no explanation as to how Plaintiff is able to address this
monetary shortfall each month.
Considering the numerous issues raised by Plaintiff’s financial affidavit, the
3

Court cannot definitively state whether her monthly expenses exceed her monthly
income, how she deals with any potential financial shortfall, and/or whether her
expenses are reasonable. As such, Plaintiff’s IFP motion is taken under
advisement, and she is directed to supply the Court with the following
supplemental financial information:
1.

an explanation of her marital/relationship status
(including whether some type of domestic partner
in her home is employed and contributes to the
household financial obligations);

2.

an indication of whether she has ever been
employed and, if so, the requisite information
regarding her former employment;

3.

a specific breakdown of her monthly expenses by
line item as indicated in the financial affidavit; and

4.

a clarification of the amount owed on medical bills
(or, at a minimum, an indication of how much she
is billed or paying on a monthly basis).

This supplemental document shall be filed on or before November 8, 2011, under
seal, in the same manner as Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of
Fees (Doc. 3, sealed) and her Affidavit of Financial Status (Doc. 4).1 If Plaintiff

1

If Plaintiff chooses, she may simply fill out another financial affidavit (to include
all of the Court’s requested information) and file it as a supplemental form, under seal.
4

fails to file the supplemental affidavit regarding her finances with necessary
clarifications as outlined in this Order, this Court will immediately recommend to
the District Court that her IFP motion be denied.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed
Without Prepayment of Fees (Doc. 3, sealed) is taken under advisement pending
Plaintiff’s submission of the additional information identified in the discussion set
forth above on or before November 8, 2011. Should Plaintiff fail to file
supplemental financial information as outlined in this Order, this Court will
immediately recommend that this motion be denied.
Dated at Wichita, Kansas, on this 18th day of October, 2011.
S/ KENNETH G. GALE

KENNETH G. GALE
United States Magistrate Judge

5