Babcock v. Anderson et al

Filing 5

Judge Patti B. Saris: ORDER entered denying #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying #3 Motion to Appoint Counsel. If plaintiff wishes to pursue this action, she shall, within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order, either (1) pay the $402 filing fee or (2) file a new, fully completed Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. If plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee or submit a new application, this action will be dismissed without prejudice. (PSSA, 4)

Case 1:22-cv-11191-PBS Document 5 Filed 08/02/22 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
)
)
)
)
) Civil Action No. 22-11191-PBS
)
)
)

JOSIE GIOSEFINA BABCOCK,
Plaintiff
v.
STEVE ANDERSON, et al.,
Defendants

ORDER
August 2, 2022
SARIS, D.J.
On July 22, 2022, pro se litigant Josie Giosefina Babcock
filed

an

employment

discrimination

complaint

accompanied

by

motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment
of counsel.
A person commencing a non-habeas civil action must (1) pay a
$350 filing fee and a $52 administrative fee; or (2) or file an
application to proceed without prepayment of fees (also referred
to as a motion or application to proceed in forma pauperis).

See

28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a); 1915(a)(1).
The standard for in forma pauperis ("IFP") eligibility is
"unable to pay such fees or give security therefor."
1915(a)(1).

28 U.S.C. §

The determination of what constitutes "unable to pay"

or unable to "give security therefor," is left to the sound
discretion of the district court based on the information submitted

Case 1:22-cv-11191-PBS Document 5 Filed 08/02/22 Page 2 of 3

by the plaintiff. Fridman v. City of New York, 195 F. Supp. 2d
534, 536 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 52 Fed. Appx. 157 (2d Cir. 2002)
(citing Williams v. Estelle, 681 F.2d 946, 947 (5th Cir. 1982).
“[O]ne must [not] be absolutely destitute to enjoy the benefit
of the [in forma pauperis] statute” and the [in forma pauperis]
statute does not require an individual to “contribute ... the last
dollar they have or can get.”
Co.,

335

U.S.

331,

339

Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours &

(1948).

However,

“[i]n

assessing

an

application to proceed in forma pauperis, a court may consider the
resources that the applicant has or ‘can get’ from those who
ordinarily provide the applicant with the ‘necessities of life,’
such as ‘from a spouse, parent, adult sibling or other next
friend.’” Fridman, 195 F. Supp. 2d at 537 (quoting Williams v.
Spencer, 455 F. Supp. 205, 208–09 (D. Md. 1978)).
In her IFP motion, plaintiff declares under the penalty of
perjury that she is not employed and received income from two
different sources during the past twelve months.
3(a), (d).

See Questions

She discloses sufficient funds to pay the $402 filing

fee, see Question 4, and states that she owns a car and a

home.

See Question No. 5.
On this financial record, the court denies plaintiff’s IFP
motion because it appears that she has sufficient funds to pay the
$402 filing fee.

Moreover, plaintiff’s IFP motion is incomplete.

She failed to answer Question 2(b) concerning details of her last
2 

Case 1:22-cv-11191-PBS Document 5 Filed 08/02/22 Page 3 of 3

employment.

She failed to answer the second part of Question 3

asking the party to describe the source of money, the amount
received and what she expects to continue to receive.
to disclose the value of her home in Question 5.

She failed

Additionally,

courts routinely consider household income and assets from a spouse
or other family member when determining whether a plaintiff is
entitled to in forma pauperis status.
Accordingly:
1.

The motions for appointment of counsel and for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis are denied without prejudice.
2.

If plaintiff wishes to pursue this action, she shall,

within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order, either (1)
pay the $402 filing fee or (2) file a new, fully completed
Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or
Costs.

If plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee or submit a new

application, this action will be dismissed without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Patti B. Saris
PATTI B. SARIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3