Puckett v. AIN Jeem, Inc.

• Decision Date: 19 October 2021
• Docket Number: 8:21-cv-1834-CEH-SPF
• Parties: MARCELLA ANDERSON PUCKETT, Plaintiff, v. AIN JEEM, INC. a/k/a Kareem Abdul Jabbar, BRICKELL IP GROUP, PLLC, and ACKERMAN, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

MARCELLA ANDERSON PUCKETT, Plaintiff,
v.
AIN JEEM, INC. a/k/a Kareem Abdul Jabbar, BRICKELL IP GROUP, PLLC, and ACKERMAN, Defendants.

No. 8:21-cv-1834-CEH-SPF

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division

October 19, 2021

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

SEAN P. FLYNN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. 2), which the Court construes as a motion to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff seeks a waiver of the filing fee for her complaint (Doc. 1).

The Court may authorize the commencement of any suit, action, or proceeding without payment of fees and costs or security by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such person possesses and establishes that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, is designed to ensure “that indigent persons will have equal access to the judicial system.” Attwood v. Singletary, 105 F.3d 610, 612 (11th Cir. 1997) (citing Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 446 (1962)). “[P]roceeding in forma pauperis is a privilege, not a right, and permission to so proceed is committed to the sound discretion of the court.” Camp v. Oliver, 798 F.2d 434, 437 (11th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). While the district court has

1

wide discretion in ruling on an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, it should grant such a privilege “sparingly” in civil cases for damages. Thomas v. Chattahoochee Jud. Cir., 574 Fed.Appx. 916 (11th Cir. 2014)^[1] (citing Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305, 1306 (11th Cir. 2004)).

When considering whether a litigant is indigent under § 1915, the only determination to be made by the district court is whether the statements in the affidavit satisfy the requirement of poverty. Martinez, 364 F.3d at 1307. A litigant need not show he or she is “absolutely destitute” to qualify for indigent status. Id. (quotation and citation omitted). Rather, an affidavit will be deemed sufficient if it demonstrates that the litigant, because of his or her poverty, cannot pay for the court fees and costs and support and provide necessities for him or herself and any dependents. Id. “In other words, the statute is not to be construed such that potential litigants are forced to become public charges or abandon their claims because of the filing fee requirements.” Id.

In determining the poverty requirement, the district court must compare the litigant's assets and liabilities. Thomas, 574 Fed.Appx. at 917. “[C]ourts will generally look to whether the person is employed, the person's annual salary, and any other property or assets the person may possess.” Schneller v. Prospect Park Nursing & Rehab. Ctr., No. 06-545, 2006 WL 1030284, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 18, 2006) (citation omitted). Courts may also consider the income of a party's spouse and joint assets when determining a party's motion to proceed in forma pauperis. See, e.g., Jones v. St. Vincents Health Sys., No. 3:07-cv-177-J-32TEM, 2007 WL 1789242, at *1 (M.D. Fla. June 19, 2007) (denying the plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis because

2

the plaintiff's total monthly household income, which was derived primarily from the spouse's income, exceeded joint monthly expenses).

Here, Plaintiff does not qualify as indigent. Plaintiff swears in her affidavit that her average monthly income during the past twelve months was $3, 380.72 and her spouse's average monthly income during the past twelve months was $1, 219.00, for a total of $4, 599.72 per month (Doc...