Sutton v. Gay

Filing 3

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re Denial of the 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Kenneth M Sutton.Noting Date 5/11/2007.Signed by Judge Karen L Strombom. (PL, )

Sutton v. Gay

Doc. 3

Case 3:07-cv-05148-RBL-KLS

Document 3

Filed 04/13/2007

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 This case has been referred to Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local MJR 3 and 4. Petitioner is an inmate at the Florence Correctional Center, located at Florence, Arizona. He has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. #1). Because petitioner appears to have sufficient funds with which to pay the $5.00 Court filing fee, the undersigned recommends the Court deny the application. DISCUSSION The district court may permit indigent litigants to proceed in forma pauperis upon completion of a proper affidavit of indigency. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). However, the district court has broad discretion in denying an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Weller v. Dickson, 314 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 845 (1963). Several district courts have ruled that denial of in forma pauperis status is not unreasonable when a prisoner is able to pay the initial expenses required to commence a lawsuit. See Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Page - 1
Dockets.Justia.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA KENNETH M. SUTTON, Petitioner, v. JOHN GAY, et al, Respondents.

Case No. C07-5148RBL-KLS REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Noted for May 11, 2007

Case 3:07-cv-05148-RBL-KLS

Document 3

Filed 04/13/2007

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

F.Supp. 848 (D.R.I. 1984); Braden v. Estelle, 428 F.Supp. 595 (S.D.Tex. 1977); U.S. ex rel. Irons v. Com. of Pa., 407 F.Supp. 746 (M.D.Pa. 1976); Shimabuku v. Britton, 357 F.Supp. 825 (D.Kan. 1973), aff'd, 503 F.2d 38 (10th Cir. 1974); Ward v. Werner, 61 F.R.D. 639 (M.D.Pa. 1974). By requesting the Court to proceed in forma pauperis, petitioner is asking the government to incur the filing fee because he allegedly is unable to afford the costs necessary to proceed with his petition for habeas corpus. Plaintiff states in his application that he earns $60.00 a month working as a laundry porter, resulting in a net monthly income of $45.00. The prison trust account statement he submitted with his application indicates he receives somewhere in the range of $62.00 and $67.00 per month in earned wages. While the undersigned recognizes that the funds to which petitioner has access may not be great, given the fact that a prisoner's basic needs are provided for while incarcerated and the minimal filing fee required to proceed with this action ($5.00), it is not unreasonable to expect petitioner to pay that fee from those funds. CONCLUSION Because it is reasonable to expect petitioner to incur the costs to proceed with his petition, the undersigned recommends that the Court deny his application to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, the undersigned also recommends that the Court order petitioner to pay the required filing fee within thirty (30) days of the court's order. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Fed. R. Civ. P.") 72(b), the parties shall have ten (10) days from service of this Report and Recommendation to file written objections thereto. See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the clerk is directed set this matter for consideration on May 11, 2007, as noted in the caption. Dated this 13th day of April, 2007.

A
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Page - 2

Karen L. Strombom United States Magistrate Judge