NEIL R. STEPHENS v. NEIL R. STEPHENS PRINCIPLE

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM ORDER indicating that #1 Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is DENIED without prejudice. To the extent Plaintiff wishes to supplement his Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, he must do so by 9/16/2024. If Plaintiff does not file a supplement to his IFP Motion by 9/16/2024, the case will be closed. Further, As Plaintiff has filed two Complaints on the Docket in this matter (Docket Nos. [1-1] and [1-4]; and Docket No. #2 ), Plaintiff must clearly indicate which document he intends to function as the operative Complaint. See Memorandum Order for further details. Signed by Judge W. Scott Hardy on 8/30/2024. (kas)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
NEIL R. STEPHENS,
Plaintiff,
v.
NEIL R. STEPHENS PRINCIPLE,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 24-952

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Presently before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Neil R. Stephens’ Motion to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis filed on July 8, 2024 (Docket No. 1, hereinafter, “IFP Motion”), along with attached
materials comprising his proposed Complaint, which was lodged pending disposition of the IFP
Motion. (Docket Nos. 1-1, 1-4). Additionally, in this same action, on August 7, 2024, Plaintiff
filed another Complaint and Civil Cover Sheet which, according to a Remark placed on the Docket
by the Clerk of Court, was filed without a motion to proceed in forma pauperis or payment of a
filing fee. (Docket No. 2 and Docket text entry). For reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s IFP
Motion will be denied without prejudice.
It is within the district court’s discretion to determine whether a litigant may be granted
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See Shahin v. Secretary of Delaware, 532 F. App’x 123, 123
(3d Cir. 2013) (citing United States v. Holiday, 436 F.2d 1079, 1079-80 (3d Cir. 1971) (granting
of application to proceed IFP is committed to sound discretion of district court)); Lewis v. Juniper
Nursing, Civ. Action No. 23-89, 2023 WL 359475, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 23, 2023) (Hardy, J.)

1

(exercising discretion to grant IFP status in case involving close call because, “despite having a
positive monthly cash flow and some additional assets, [the plaintiff was] not an individual of great
financial means, particularly considering the cost of everyday living expenses and the possibility
that unforeseen expenses could quickly deplete [his] modest savings and other assets”). As the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals has emphasized, “[w]hen exercising its discretion to approve or
deny a motion to proceed IFP, a District Court ‘must be rigorous . . . to ensure that the treasury is
not unduly imposed upon.’” In re Mock, 252 F. App’x 522, 523 (3d Cir. 2007) (quoting Walker
v. People Express Airlines, Inc., 886 F.2d 598, 601 (3d Cir. 1989)). However, the district court
also must be cognizant that “the purpose of the IFP statute ‘is to provide an entré, not a barrier, to
the indigent seeking relief in federal court.’” Id. (quoting Souder v. McGuire, 516 F.2d 820, 823
(3d Cir. 1975)). Although “[a] litigant need not be ‘absolutely destitute’ or contribute his or her
‘last dollar’ in order to qualify for in forma pauperis status,” Johnson v. Rothschild, 741 F. App’x
52, 54 (3d Cir. 2018) (quoting Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948)),
it is important to bear in mind that “the status is a privilege rather than a right.” Shahin, 532 F.
App’x at 123 (citing White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1233 (10th Cir. 1998)).
After reviewing Plaintiff’s IFP Motion in light of these legal principles, the Court
concludes that his qualification for in forma pauperis status is unclear based on the information he
has provided. In the IFP Motion, Plaintiff does not state that he is employed, nor does he list any
accompanying wages. (Docket No. 1, ¶ 2). However, in response to the question whether he has
received “Other Income” in the past 12 months, Plaintiff indicates that has received income from
a “[b]usiness, profession, or other self-employment.” (Id. ¶ 3). In connection with such other
income, Plaintiff lists “Friends & Family” as a source of money, but he does not state the amount
that he received or what he expects to receive in the future. (Id.). Plaintiff also indicates that he

2

has no money in cash or in a checking or savings account, and he responds “N/A” with regard to
whether he has assets. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 5). Plaintiff also responds “N/A” as to whether he has any regular
monthly expenses or whether any persons are dependent on him for support. (Id. ¶¶ 6, 7). Finally,
Plaintiff does not indicate whether he has any debts or financial obligations. (Id. ¶ 8).
In summary, Plaintiff’s IFP Motion indicates that in the last 12 months he has received
income from a business, profession, or other self-employment – with friends and family as a source
of money – in an undisclosed amount. He lists no cash, savings, or assets, but he also lists no
monthly expenses, dependents, debts, or financial obligations. Therefore, unlike many litigants
seeking in forma pauperis status, Plaintiff may have a positive monthly cash flow. Nevertheless,
it is unclear whether Plaintiff’s income is offset by any expenses because he has provided vague
and/or incomplete responses to requests for relevant information. Consequently, the Court is
unable to determine whether to exercise its discretion to grant Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma
pauperis based on his IFP Motion as currently presented. However, given that Plaintiff need not
be “absolutely destitute” or contribute his “last dollar” in order to qualify for in forma pauperis
status, the Court will deny his IFP Motion without prejudice to him filing a supplement thereto
which provides clear and complete responses to all requested information. If Plaintiff wishes to
supplement his IFP Motion, he must do so by September 16, 2024. Otherwise, this case will be
closed. Additionally, as Plaintiff has now filed two Complaints on the Docket in this matter,
Plaintiff should clearly indicate which document he intends to function as the operative Complaint
here.

Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, the Court enters the following Order:
AND NOW, this 30th day of August, 2024, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

3

(1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Docket No. 1) is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and,
(2) To the extent Plaintiff wishes to supplement his Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis as discussed herein, he must do so by September 16, 2024. If Plaintiff does
not file a supplement to his IFP Motion by September 16, 2024, the case will be closed.
(3) As Plaintiff has filed two Complaints on the Docket in this matter (Docket Nos. 1-1
and 1-4; and Docket No. 2), Plaintiff must clearly indicate which document he intends
to function as the operative Complaint here.

s/ W. Scott Hardy
W. Scott Hardy
United States District Judge
cc:

Neil R. Stephens (via U.S. mail)

4