Gabel, Amy v. MillerCoors

Filing 3

ORDER on ifp request: Complaint taken under advisement for screening. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peter A. Oppeneer on 7/09/2014. (nln),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
AMY L. GABEL,
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
Case No. 14-cv-489-jdp
MILLERCOORS, MIKE LOZANO, RORY
PETERS, CHRIS LETO AND ERIC TILLMAN,
Defendants.

Plaintiff Amy L. Gabel has filed a proposed civil complaint. She asks for leave to
proceed without prepayment of the filing fee and has supported her 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 $3,700 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 is currently unemployed and has no substantial assets. Plaintiff
receives $600.00 per month or $7,200.00 annually from W-2. Plaintiff also indicated that
she received $3,000.00 in the last twelve months in the form of a tax refund. Additionally,

plaintiff reports she supports one minor dependent.

The court subtracted $3,700.00,

accounting for the one dependent, from plaintiff’s annual income leaving a balance of
$6,500.00. Accordingly, plaintiff may proceed without any prepayment of fees or costs.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1.

The motion filed by plaintiff Amy L. Gabel for leave to proceed without

prepayment of fees (Dkt. # 2) is GRANTED.
2.

No further action will be taken in this case until the court has screened the

complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to determine whether the case must be dismissed
because the complaint is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. Once
the screening process is complete, a separate order will issue.

Entered this 9th day of July, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
PETER OPPENEER
Magistrate Judge