Johnson v. United States

Filing 6

ORDER adopting 4 the Report and Recommendation; denying 1 and 3 Plaintiff's Motions for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 12/13/16. (jk) (This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

Roger Johnson,
Plaintiff,
V.

United States of America,

Case No. 2:16-cv-1064

Judge Michaei H. Watson

Defendant.
ORDER

Roger Johnson ("PlaintifT') initiated this case on November 8,2016, and
moved to proceed in forma pauperis. Mot., EOF No. 1. United States Magistrate

Judge Joison thereafter issued an Order noting that Plaintiff had filed a shortform application to proceed In forma pauperis and ordering Plaintiff to file a longform application. Order, EOF No. 2. Plaintiff filed a long-form application. Mot.,

EOF No. 3, and Magistrate Judge Joison subsequently Issued a Report and
Recommendation ("R&R") recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff's motion.
R&R, EOF No. 4. The R&R found that "Plaintiff appear[ed] to have access to

sufficient assets such that paying the one-time filing fee of $400.00 would not
impose an undue hardship upon him. That is, paying the filing fee would not

cause Plaintiff to deprive himself the necessities of life." Id. at 2. Plaintiff objects
to the R&R. Ob]., EOF No. 5.
Magistrate Judge Joison issued the R&R pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 72(b). Under that rule, the Undersigned must determine de novo any

part of the Magistrate Judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). The undersigned may accept, reject, or modify the
R&R, receive further evidence, or return the matter to the Magistrate Judge with
instructions. Id.

Plaintiff makes two objections. First, he argues that the judicial branch of
the government lacks authority to charge fees for the filing of lawsuits.
This objection is overruled. Congress requires the filing fee charged by

this Court for the filing of a civil lawsuit. Specifically, 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) states,
"[t]he clerk of each district court shall require the parties instituting any civil
action, suit or proceeding in such court, whether by original process, removal or

otherwise, to pay a filing fee of $360

" Courts may charge such additional

fees as are prescribed by the Judicial Conference of the United States, Id., which

has increased the fee for non-prisoner civil actions to $400. Accordingly, this
Court has authority to charge the filing fee.
Next, Plaintiff argues that his right to pursue happiness will be Inhibited

should the Court charge the prepayment of fees. Plaintiff contends he has only

$600 in discretionary funds each month after the payment of expenses and thus
has only $600 to spend in the pursuit of his happiness each month.
This objection is also overruled. The standard for proceeding without the

prepayment of fees is whether it will render Plaintiff unable to provide the
necessities of life for himself and his dependents. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de

Nemours & Co, 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). The fact that Plaintiff, by his own
Case No. 2:16-cv-1064

Page 2 of 3

admission, has $600 a month in discretionary funds demonstrates that that
standard is not met. Moreover, the fiiing fee does not inhibit PlaintifTs right to the
pursuit of happiness, it is Plaintiffs choice to file this lawsuit, and Plaintiff is free
to spend his money instead on other endeavors that would bring him more
enjoyment if he so chooses.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's objections, ECF No. 5, are OVERRULED; the R&R,
ECF No. 4, is ADOPTED, and Plaintiffs motions for leave to appear in forma

pauperls, ECF Nos. 1 & 3, are DENIED. Plaintiff shall pay the full fiiing fee within
thirty days, or this case will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to
prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. 2:16-cv-1064

Page 3 of 3