Cooke v. Peterson et al

Filing 28

ORDER denying 27 Application on Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal (Written Opinion). Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 1/16/2013. (PJM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 12-1587(DSD/JJK)
Aaron Cooke,
Plaintiff,
ORDER

v.
Jeffrey Peterson, Executive
Officer of the Hearing and
Release Unit for the Minnesota
Department of Corrections, All
Defendants are Sued in Their
Personal Capacity Only; Deb
Schadegg, all Hearings and
Release Officers for the Hearing
and Release Unit. All
Defendants are Sued in Their
Personal Capacity Only; Rick Pung,
all Hearing and Release Officers
for the Hearing and Release Unit.
All Defendants are Sued in Their
Personal Capacity Only; Zach Gahm,
all Hearings and Release Officers
for the Hearing and Release Unit.
All Defendants are Sued in Their
Personal Capacity Only;
Defendants.

This matter is before the court upon the amended application
to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal by plaintiff Aaron
Cooke.

A litigant who seeks to be excused from paying the filing

fee for an appeal may apply for IFP status under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915.

See also Fed. R. App. P. 24(a).

To qualify for IFP

status, the litigant must demonstrate that he or she cannot afford
to pay the full filing fee.

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

the record shows that Cooke is not indigent.

In this case,

When evaluating an IFP application, a court must consider “not
only an IFP applicant’s personal income, but also his or her other
financial resources, including the resources that could be made
available from the applicant’s spouse, or other family members.”
Helland v. St. Mary’s Duluth Clinic Health Sys., No. 10-31, 2010 WL
502781, at *1 n.1 (D. Minn. Feb. 5, 2010) (Erickson, M.J.).

In the

instant matter, Cooke’s total monthly income is $1800.00 and his
spouse has a total monthly income of $4920.00.

See ECF No. 27, at

1-2. As a result, based on the information that has been furnished
by Cooke, the court finds that he is not financially eligible for
IFP status.

See Helland, 2010 WL 502871, at *1 (“[G]iven the total

monthly income of the Plaintiff and his wife, which is nearly
$3,500.00, the Court cannot conclude that they are indigent, for
IFP purposes.”).

Therefore, the application to proceed IFP on

appeal is denied.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, based upon the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
the amended application to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 27]
is denied.
Dated:

January 16, 2013
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court

2