Patraw v. Scottrade Inc. et al

Filing 6

ORDER sustaining Plaintiff's objections to the Report and Recommendation; respectfully declining to adopt 4 Report and Recommendation. The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to mail Plaintiff Patraw a copy of the District's standard IFP applicati on form. Plaintiff Patraw is ORDERED to file, no later than June 2, 2017, the following documents with the Court: a. A complete and accurate District of Minnesota IFP application; and b. A brief explanation for any differences between this IFP application and either of the two IFP applications she previously submitted. (Written Opinion) Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 05/11/2017. (SMD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Jenni Rasmussen Patraw,

Civil No. 16-cv-3908 (SRN/SER)

Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
Scottrade Inc. and John Does 1 through 10,
Defendants.

Jenni Rasmussen Patraw, 115 E. Geranium, St. Paul, MN, 5517, pro se Plaintiff.

SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge
In November 2016, Plaintiff Jenni Rasmussen Patraw (“Patraw”) filed a complaint
containing federal and state law claims against Defendants related to their alleged
mishandling of accounts held by Patraw’s late husband following his death. (Compl. [Doc.
No. 1].) Accompanying the Complaint was Patraw’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”). (First IFP Application [Doc. No. 2].) In her First IFP Application,
Patraw plainly states that she makes $8,000 per month, has few (if any) other assets, has one
dependent (her son), but has only $150 per month in expenses. (Id.) Considering Patraw’s
income of $8,000 a month is nearly six times the federal poverty limit, Magistrate Judge
Rau (“Judge Rau”) denied Patraw’s IFP application. (Order dated 12/5/2016 [Doc. No. 3].)
Judge Rau ordered Patraw to pay the $400 filing fee within twenty days, otherwise her
claims would be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Id.)

More than twenty days elapsed and Patraw did not pay the filing fee, nor did she
object to Judge Rau’s order. Thus, Judge Rau issued a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) recommending that her claims be dismissed without prejudice for failure to
prosecute. (R&R dated 1/6/2017 [Doc. No. 4].) Patraw now objects to the R&R “[b]ased
on her income.” (See Pl.’s Objs. [Doc. No. 5].) Patraw claims that “[t]he forms must have
been read incorrectly, because Plaintiff’s income is below the standard and the request to
proceed in forma pauperis should be granted.” (Id.) In support, Patraw attached an IFP
application from the Minnesota state court system. (Second IFP Application [Doc. No. 51].) In this new application, Patraw claims she makes only $1,000 a month, has $10,000 in
debt, pays $300 a month in rent or mortgage payments, and pays $500 a month for her son’s
orthodontic braces.

(See id.)

Patraw provides no explanation for the considerable

differences between the First and Second IFP Applications.
In the interest of fairness, and in light of the new information regarding Patraw’s
finances, the Court respectfully declines to adopt the Report and Recommendation.
However, Patraw will be required to submit a new and accurate IFP application so that the
Court can determine if she qualifies for IFP status. To assist Patraw in this process, the
Court will order the Clerk of Court to send Patraw a blank copy of the District’s IFP
application form. However, Patraw is cautioned to carefully and completely fill out the IFP
application in a timely fashion. Patraw must also provide an explanation for any differences
between the information in her third application and that provided in either of her first two
applications. Should Patraw fail to accurately complete and file the IFP application and
explanation described above in the time allowed, the Court will dismiss her claims without
2

prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 5] are
SUSTAINED.
2. The Court respectfully DECLINES TO ADOPT the Report and
Recommendation [Doc. No. 4] given the new information provided to the
Court regarding Plaintiff’s financial status.
3. The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to mail Plaintiff Patraw a copy of the
District’s standard IFP application form.
4. Plaintiff Patraw is ORDERED to file, no later than June 2, 2017, the
following documents with the Court:
a. A complete and accurate District of Minnesota IFP application; and
b. A brief explanation for any differences between this IFP application and
either of the two IFP applications she previously submitted.

Dated: May 11, 2017

s/ Susan Richard Nelson
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON
United States District Judge

3