Rose, Mark v. Brady's Brewhouse, Inc.

Filing 3

ORDER denying 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Full filing fee required. Fee due 8/3/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker on 7/12/2012. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

MARK S. ROSE, JR.,
ORDER
Plaintiff,
12-cv-493-wmc
v.
BRADY’S BREWHOUSE INC,
Defendant.

Plaintiff Mark Rose has filed a proposed civil complaint. Plaintiff has asked for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis and has supported his request with an affidavit of indigency. The
standard for determining whether plaintiff qualifies for indigent status is the following:
!

From plaintiff’s annual gross income, the court subtracts $3700 for each
dependent excluding the plaintiff.

!

If the balance is less than $16,000, the plaintiff may proceed without any
prepayment of fees and costs.

!

If the balance is greater than $16,000 but less than $32,000, the plaintiff must
prepay half the fees and costs.

!

If the balance is greater than $32,000, the plaintiff must prepay all fees and costs.

!

Substantial assets or debts require individual consideration.

In this case, plaintiff has two dependents. His monthly net income is $1,950 and his
wife’s monthly net income is $2,394. Under Wisconsin’s marital property laws, plaintiff’s wife’s
income is considered to be plaintiff’s as well. Thus, plaintiff’s annual income is $52,128.
Plaintiff’s balance comes to $44,728 after subtracting $7,400 for two dependents. Because
plaintiff’s income is greater than $32,000, if he wishes to proceed with this action, he will have
to pay the $350 filing fee in full.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Mark Rose’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
in this action is DENIED because plaintiff does not qualify for indigent status.
Further, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff may have until August 3, 2012, in which to pay
the $350 fee for filing her lawsuit. If, by August 3, 2012, plaintiff fails to pay the fee, the clerk
of court is directed to enter judgment dismissing this case without prejudice for plaintiff’s failure
to prosecute it.

Entered this 12th day of July, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
STEPHEN L. CROCKER
Magistrate Judge

2