Taylor v. Akron Metropolitan Housing Authority et al.

PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
TONY TAYLOR JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
AKRON METROPOLITAN HOUSING
AUTHORITY, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 5:25CV1882
JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER
[Resolving ECF No. 2]
Pro Se Plaintiff Tony Taylor Jr. filed a civil action in this Court but did not pay the filing
fee. He instead asked the Court to waive the filing fee in a document of his own creation based
loosely on form AO 240, the “short form” of an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. See
ECF No. 2. The Court no longer uses the AO 240 form because it does not seek sufficient
information from the applicant for the Court to make a determination of poverty. Plaintiff’s
version of this form is even more lacking in required information. He simply describes his
income as “$0 or limited,” his bank account as having a “minimal balance,” his vehicle as
“low-value,” and his utilities expenses as “[m]inimal or unpaid.” ECF No. No. 2 at PageID #:
15.
On October 23, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to either to pay the full fee of $ 405.00
or to truthfully, accurately and thoroughly complete and file an AO 239 Application to Proceed
In Forma Pauperis (the long form) within 30 days of the date of the Order. Order (ECF No. 4).
The Clerk’s Office provided Plaintiff with an AO 239 form with a copy of the Order. The Court
Case: 5:25-cv-01882-BYP Doc #: 5 Filed: 11/25/25 1 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

(5:25CV1882)
notified Plaintiff that failure to comply with ECF No. 4 within the time period allotted may result
in dismissal of this action without further notice. More than 30 days have passed and Plaintiff
did not comply with the Order nor has he moved for an extension of time.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court may authorize the commencement of any action
without prepayment of filing fees if the litigant submits an affidavit that includes a statement of
all assets, income, and debt that demonstrates the person is unable to pay the filing fee. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Pauper status does not require absolute destitution. Foster v. Cuyahoga
Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 21 Fed.Appx. 239, 240 (6th Cir. 2001). Instead, the Court
must examine the affidavit and determine whether the litigant can pay the court costs without
undue hardship. Id. It is within the Court’s discretion to allow a litigant to proceed in forma
pauperis. Id.
The Court takes very seriously a request to proceed with litigation at taxpayer expense
and grants only those applications which demonstrate that payment of the filing fee would
require the applicant to forgo “food, shelter, clothing, or some other necessity” if they were
required to pay a judicial filing fee. Maddox v. Foley, No. 3:23-cv-48, 2023 WL 3852943, at *1
(S.D. Ohio May 10, 2023). Pauper status is not available for a litigant who seeks waiver of the
fee simply because she would have to make adjustments in the monthly budget to pay the fee or
because she would like to test the legal viability of her case before making a financial
commitment to the litigation. Behmlander v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 12-CV-14424, 2012 WL
5457466 at * 2 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 16, 2012) (A person is not a pauper just because he must “weigh
the financial constraints posed by pursuing her complaint against the merits of her claims.”).
2
Case: 5:25-cv-01882-BYP Doc #: 5 Filed: 11/25/25 2 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

(5:25CV1882)
Proceeding in forma pauperis is a privilege, and not a right. Wilson v. Yaklich, 148 F.3d 596,
603 (6th Cir. 1998).
Here, Plaintiff did not demonstrate an inability to pay the filing fee. He created his own
form and filled it out with general statements, rather than specific information. The Court
notified Plaintiff of this deficiency and gave him an opportunity to correct it to avoid dismissal of
his action. He did not comply with the Court’s Order (ECF No. 4) and provide the Court with
specific information. Without that information, the Court has no basis upon which to grant an
Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) is denied
and this case is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Court certifies pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 25, 2025
Date
/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge
3
Case: 5:25-cv-01882-BYP Doc #: 5 Filed: 11/25/25 3 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>