Byrd v. Gwin
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS denying 6 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Objections to R&R due by 11/30/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 11/16/2017. (ew)(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
HOUSTON BYRD, JR.,
Civil Action 2:17-cv-981
Judge Algenon L. Marbley
Magistrate Judge Jolson
JUDGE W. SCOTT GWIN,
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff initiated this matter as a miscellaneous case, seeking to reopen his state appellate
court case. On October 16, 2017, this Court issued an Order explaining to Plaintiff that
miscellaneous cases are ancillary and supplementary proceedings related to other cases filed in
federal courts. (Doc. 2). Consequently, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show good cause within
fourteen days why this action should remain as a miscellaneous action and why he should not be
charged the full civil filing fee of $400. (Id.).
After fourteen days had passed and Plaintiff had failed to respond, this Court issued an
Order on November 7, 2017, directing the Clerk is to refile the matter as a civil action and
ordering Plaintiff to pay the $400 filing fee or file a proper motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis within fourteen days. (Doc. 4). The Court warned Plaintiff that his failure to do so
would result in a recommendation of dismissal for want of prosecution. (Id.).
Plaintiff filed a response to the Court’s show cause Order the following day, on
November 8, 2017. (Doc. 5). Although difficult to decipher, Plaintiff appears to argue the
matter should remain a miscellaneous case because he is not “trying to recover any
compensatory and punitive monetary damages.”
(Id. at 1).
However, Plaintiff seemingly
abandoned that argument in a second response filed on November 14, 2017, in which he requests
“reparations for the $47.00 submitted….” (Doc. 8 at 2).
Also on November 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (Doc. 6). In Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc.,
335 U.S. 331 (1948), the Supreme Court set forth the legal standard applicable to a motion to
proceed in forma pauperis. An affidavit of poverty is sufficient if it reflects that the plaintiff
cannot pay the Court’s filing fee without depriving himself and his dependents the “necessities of
life.” Id. at 339 (internal quotation marks omitted). Although the plaintiff need not be totally
destitute in order to proceed in forma pauperis, paying the filing fee must be more than a mere
hardship. See Foster v. Cuyahoga Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 21 F. App’x. 239, 240 (6th
Cir. 2001) (noting that “the question is whether the court costs can be paid without undue
Upon review of Plaintiff’s Motion, it appears that he has access to sufficient assets such
that paying the one-time filing fee of $400.00 would not impose an undue hardship upon him and
his dependent. That is, paying the filing fee would not cause Plaintiff to deprive himself and his
dependent the necessities of life. Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. (Doc. 6).
Procedure on Objections
If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen
(14) days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those
specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with
supporting authority for the objection(s).
A Judge of this Court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the Report or specified proposed findings or recommendations
to which objection is made. Upon proper objections, a Judge of this Court may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further
evidence or may recommit this matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C.
The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and
Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the District Judge review the Report
and Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of
the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140
(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: November 16, 2017
/s/ Kimberly A. Jolson
KIMBERLY A. JOLSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?