Pool v. 280th District Court Harris County ( 2023 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION DEVAN POOL, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CIVIL NO. W-23-CV-00447-ADA § 280TH DISTRICT COURT HARRIS § COUNTY, § § Defendant. § ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2). For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis I. DISCUSSION Plaintiff filed an application for in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status and lists “N/A” in re- sponse to all of the questions on the questionnaire. See ECF No. 2. Courts may grant IFP status only if a plaintiff submits an affidavit, including a statement of all their assets, showing the ina- bility to pay the statutory filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Court finds that Plaintiff’s in- complete application is insufficient to apprise the Court of Plaintiff’s financial situation. See e.g. Kelly v. Intuit, 323CV00694JAHJLB, 2023 WL 4220768, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 27, 2023) (“Plaintiff submits an incomplete affidavit in which all fields related to assets and expenses and identifying the city and state of their legal residence are blank. Without a complete affidavit, the Court is unable to determine Plaintiff's ability or inability to pay the statutory filling fee.)” Be- cause Plaintiff fails the foundational step of providing an accurate affidavit as required under the statute, the Court is unable to determine whether Plaintiff even qualifies for IFP status. Accord- ingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP. Plaintiff is thus ORDERED to pay any filing fees and effect service. SIGNED this 20th day of July, 2023. DEREK | . he AND UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE