Hughes et al v. City of Dublin et al
Filing
2
ORDER - If Petitioners wish to have the Court act on the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, they must (1) for Mr. Hughes, submit a revised application which provides dollar amounts in response to the key questions - income (that is, money ) received from any source in the last twelve months, assets (including cash, in the form of United States currency, on hand), and liabilities, and (2) for Mr. Bott, submit a signed application which does the same. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terence P. Kemp on 2/29/2016. (agm)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
James Hughes, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
:
City of Dublin, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 2:16-cv-153
:
v.
:
JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY
:
Magistrate Judge Kemp
:
ORDER
On February 18, 2016, this Court received a complaint and
motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1).
Two
names appear in the caption as “petitioners” (James Hughes and
James Bott), and both signed the complaint, but the in forma
pauperis application is signed only by Mr. Hughes.
For the
following reasons, the Court will direct Mr. Bott also to submit
an in forma pauperis motion if he wants to be relieved of the
obligation to pay the filing fee, and it will direct Mr. Hughes
to submit an amended application if he wishes the Court to act
favorably upon it.
Mr. Hughes completed the form which the Court provides to
non-prisoner litigants who wish to proceed in forma pauperis.
However, he did not provide any financial information in response
to any of the questions on the form - that is, he did not insert
any dollar amount, including $0.00, in any of the spaces
provided.
Rather, he answered the questions in the following
fashion.
The first question asked if Mr. Hughes was currently or had
ever been employed.
He answered “N/A,” providing the explanation
that “employed - taxpayer or agent for taxpayer.
business entity.”
Taxpayer means
In response to questions two and three, which
ask about family members, he explained that although the State of
Ohio offered a marital relationship, he did not have one, and
that the term dependents, as used in question three, was
“undefined but seems to pertain to the control of the Congress in
the District of Columbia issues, petitioners are without this.”
Going to the next question, he denied receiving any income in the
past twelve months on grounds that he was “without these
relationships” - apparently referring to the phrase “income from
a business, profession or other form of self-employment, or in
the form of rent payments, retirement benefits, annuity payments,
interest or dividends, or any other source” which is used in
question four.
Next, the form asked Mr. Hughes about cash, assets, and
liabilities. He denied having any of these, offering
explanations like “No means. Petitioner status mischaracterized
cannot open access [illegible]” and “Petitioners property has
been stolen, status sabotaged.” His liabilities were listed as
“not available.” He also referred to a “Note to Magistrate”
which is attached to his application, and which contains various
explanations of legal principles, but no further information
about Mr. Hughes’ ability to pay a filing fee.
As an aside, the Court notes that the complaint (or
petition, as it is labeled) alleges that Mr. Hughes and Mr. Bott
gave notice to the Respondents, who include the City of Dublin
and the Ohio Department of Public Safety, that they intended “to
live privately at Ohio without resident status” (¶13) and also
that they had bought a jeep and had removed it from “their venue
(this state) plane allowed as nonresident or non-resident.”
(¶18). Notwithstanding these notifications, the petitioners
claim that the State or the City of Dublin “stole” the jeep after
a traffic stop - perhaps because the vehicle was not registered and refused to give it back. The Court draws its conclusion
about the lack of registration from portions of the prayer for
relief, which ask this Court to declare that “Respondents et al
-2-
are without standing or power to compel petitioners to register
their private property or licensing of their innocent conduct in
this matter” and that petitioners “retain the right to non
commercial travel the streets and alleys at Ohio without license
or registration.” Should the case get to the point where the
Court would have to examine the complaint, as required by 28
U.S.C. §1915(e)(2), to determine if it states a claim upon which
relief can be granted, there may be an issue with the applicable
statute of limitations, which is two years for a constitutional
claim against state officials, see Browning v. Pendleton, 869
F.2d 989, 992 (6th Cir. 1989). The seizure of the vehicle
occurred, according to Petitioners, more than two years before
they submitted their in forma pauperis application here. There
may well be other issues with the complaint as well, but the
Court cannot conduct that review until it determines whether,
from a financial viewpoint, the Petitioners have the means to pay
the filing fee.
It is apparent both from the in forma pauperis application
and from the petition that Mr. Hughes has a somewhat different
view of things than the typical in forma pauperis applicant. He
is certainly entitled to his view, but, at the same time, this
Court is entitled to receive a certain type and amount of
financial information before it grants a litigant in forma
pauperis status. The Court may deny in forma pauperis status if
paying the filing fee would not deprive the applicant of the
necessities of life. See Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemouors &
Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). When it cannot make that
determination on the basis of the information presented, the
Court has the discretion to deny the application. See Lister v.
Dept. of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, (10th Cir. 2005)(denial of in
forma pauperis status was appropriate where the litigant “failed
to provide this court with sufficient information from which the
court can ascertain her financial status”).
In order to give both Petitioners the opportunity to seek in
-3-
forma pauperis status if, in fact, they cannot afford to pay the
filing fee, the Court makes the following order. If they wish to
have the Court act on the motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, Petitioners must (1) for Mr. Hughes, submit a revised
application which provides dollar amounts in response to the key
questions - income (that is, money) received from any source in
the last twelve months, assets (including cash, in the form of
United States currency, on hand), and liabilities, and (2) for
Mr. Bott, submit a signed application which does the same. Each
are warned that the application must be sworn to or declared
under penalty of perjury, and are also advised that if any of the
statements on the application turn out to be false, the Court may
revoke in forma pauperis status and, if the fee is not then paid
(or if the falsehoods in the application were intentional), may
dismiss the case with prejudice. See, e.g., Ferguson-Bey v.
Lever Brothers, Inc., 586 F.Supp. 1435 (D. Md. 1984); see also
Thompson v. Carlson, 705 F.2d 868 (6th Cir. 1983). The Court
also notes that the complaint does not contain a separate address
for Mr. Bott. For that reason, this order cannot be mailed to
him other than at Mr. Hughes’ address, but if Mr. Bott does not
respond to the order or provide the Court with an address, he
will not be permitted to continue as a petitioner in this case.
Procedure on Motion to Reconsider
If any party objects to this order, that
party may, within
fourteen days after this Order is filed, file and serve on the
opposing party a motion for reconsideration by a District Judge.
28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A), Rule 72(a), Fed. R. Civ. P.; Eastern
Division Order No. 14-01, pt. IV(C)(3)(a).
The motion must
specifically designate the order or part in question and the
basis for any objection.
Responses to objections are due
fourteen days after objections are filed and replies by the
objecting party are due seven days thereafter.
The District
Judge, upon consideration of the motion, shall set aside any part
of this Order found to be clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
-4-
This order is in full force and effect even if a motion for
reconsideration has been filed unless it is stayed by either the
Magistrate Judge or District Judge.
S.D. Ohio L.R. 72.3.
/s/ Terence P. Kemp
United States Magistrate Judge
-5-
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?