Kriemelmeyer, Frederick v. Krebs, Kevin et al
ORDER denying without prejudice plaintiff's 5 motion for reconsideration 4 order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff may have until 3/15/2018 to submit a detailed account of his monthly income and expenses as explained in this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peter A. Oppeneer on 3/8/2018. (nln),(ps)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
FREDRICK GEORGE KRIEMELMEYER,
Case No. 18-cv-48-bbc
KEVIN KREBS and ARNETTA MALLORY,
In an order entered on February 9, 2018, I denied plaintiff Fredrick George
Kriemelmeyer’s motion for leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. Dkt. 4. Now
plaintiff has filed a motion for reconsideration of the February 9 order. Dkt. 5. As explained
below, I will deny plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration without prejudice, but will give plaintiff
the opportunity to submit additional information about his income and expenses.
The court’s standard for determining whether a plaintiff qualifies for indigent status is
whether plaintiff’s annual gross income is less than $36,000. If so, then plaintiff may proceed
without prepayment of the fees and costs. In this case, plaintiff reports that he currently
receives income in the amount $7,000 per month, or $84,000 annually. If I consider only
plaintiff’s income, he does not qualify for indigent status.
That being said, plaintiff reports that he is self-employed as a dentist and has $6,075.32
in monthly expenses, including materials for his dentistry business and “rent.” Plaintiff may
have a legitimate argument that I should consider his business expenses in calculating his
income for purposes of assessing his indigency. However, I cannot do so at this time because
plaintiff has not provided sufficient detail regarding the monthly income and expenses included
on his affidavit. For example, because plaintiff has not separated his personal and business
expenses, I cannot determine whether plaintiff’s monthly “rent” and other expenses includes
money he spends to rent both his home and place of business. Such detail is necessary to
properly calculate plaintiff’s income.
For these reasons, I will deny plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of his request to
proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. However, plaintiff may have until March 15,
2018 to submit a more detailed account of his monthly income and expenses in which he
clearly separates personal and business expenses. If he does so, I will reassess his indigency
status. If I determine that plaintiff is not indigent, or if plaintiff does not respond by March
15, I will issue summons so that plaintiff may proceed with service of defendants on his own.1
If I conclude that plaintiff is indigent, the court will refund $50 of the $400 amount plaintiff
has paid2 and plaintiff’s complaint will be forwarded to Judge Crabb for screening under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e) to determine whether his complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is
immune from such relief. If Judge Crabb determines that plaintiff may proceed, she will direct
the U.S. Marshal service to serve plaintiff’s complaint on defendants.
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Fredrick George Kriemelmeyer’s motion for
reconsideration of the February 9, 2018 order denying plaintiff leave to proceed without
prepayment of the filing fee, dkt. 5, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may have
On March 5, 2018, the court received a money order in the amount of $400 from plaintiff, submitted
“under protest” to pay for the fee for filing this action.
Even if plaintiff qualifies as indigent, he is still responsible for paying a $350 filing fee for each court
action he files.
until March 15, 2018 to submit a detailed account of his monthly income and expenses, as
Entered this 8th day of March, 2018.
BY THE COURT:
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?