Askins v. Geico Insurance Agency LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ZACKERY J. ASKINS, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-25-1049-SLP
)
GEICO INSURANCE AGENCY LLC, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff has filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“Application”).
(Doc. 2). United States District Judge Scott L. Palk referred the motion to the undersigned
Magistrate Judge consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). (Doc. 3).
The filing fee in civil cases is presently $405.00.1 	Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a
district court has discretion to permit the commencement of an action without prepayment
of fees or security therefor. 	See Grimes v. TCF Bank, 769 F. App’x. 659, 660 (10th Cir.
2019) (reviewing a district court order denying an IFP application for an abuse of
discretion); Cabrera v. Horgas, 1999 WL 241783, at *1 (10th Cir. 1999) (“The decision to
grant or deny in forma pauperis [IFP] status under § 1915 lies within the sound discretion
of the trial court.”).
Proceeding in forma pauperis (“IFP”) “in a civil case is a privilege, not a right –
fundamental or otherwise.” White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1233 (10th Cir. 1998). To
1 The total filing fee includes a base fee of $350.00 and an administrative fee of $55.00.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Judicial Conf. Sched. of Fees, Dist. Ct. Misc. Fee Sched. ¶ 14.
Case 5:25-cv-01049-SLP Document 5 Filed 10/22/25 Page 1 of 4

2
succeed on a motion to proceed IFP, the movant must show a financial inability to pay the
required filing fees. Lister v. Dep’t of the Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005).
The court evaluates “an application to proceed [IFP] . . . in light of the applicant’s present
financial status.” 	Scherer v. Kansas, 263 F. App’x 667, 669 (10th Cir. 2008) (citation
omitted).
Plaintiff is a prisoner housed at the Midwest Joint Regional Correctional Facility in
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. (Doc. 2, at 3; id. at Ex. 1). Because Plaintiff is a prisoner, he
must “submit a certified copy of the trust fund account statement (or institutional
equivalent) for the . . . 6-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint .
. . 	obtained from the appropriate official of each prison at which the prisoner is or was
confined.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). In addition to being required by statute, the information
is necessary because if IFP status is granted, the court must assess a partial filing fee of 20
percent of the greater of his average monthly deposits or the average monthly balance for
the six-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint. Id. § 1915(b)(1).
The statement submitted by Plaintiff is dated July 16, 2025 – nearly two months
prior to filing this action. (Doc. 2, at Ex. 1, at 1). Additionally, the undersigned is aware
that Plaintiff was housed at a second facility, Springfield MCFP, during the relevant six-
month period. See Askins v. Hartson, No. CIV-25-759-JD, Doc. 2, at Ex. 1 (W. D. Okla.
July 10, 2025) (report dated April 29, 2025, listing Plaintiff’s current institution as
Springfield MCFP). 	The undersigned ordered Plaintiff to cure these deficiencies on or
before October 7, 2025. 	(Doc. 4). 	The undersigned warned Plaintiff that “[f]ailure to
Case 5:25-cv-01049-SLP Document 5 Filed 10/22/25 Page 2 of 4

3
comply with this Order may result in the denial of IFP status and/or the dismissal of this
action.” (Id. at 2). Despite such warning, Plaintiff has not responded to the order.
Because the Court does not have the necessary information required to adjudicate
Plaintiff’s motion, and Plaintiff has failed to provide such information despite being
ordered to do so, the undersigned recommends Plaintiff’s Application be denied.
RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends the court DENY Plaintiff’s
Application (Doc. 2). The undersigned further recommends that if Plaintiff does not pay
the $405.00 filing fee in full to the Clerk of the Court within 21 days of any order adopting
this Report and Recommendation, that this action be dismissed without prejudice to the
refiling. LCvR 3.3(e).
Plaintiff is advised of his right to file an objection to this Report and
Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court by November 12, 2025, in accordance
with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to make timely objection
to this Report and Recommendation waives his right to appellate review of both factual
and legal issues contained herein. 	See Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th
Cir. 1991).
This Report and Recommendation disposes of all issues and terminates the referral
to the undersigned Magistrate Judge unless and until the matter is re-referred.
Case 5:25-cv-01049-SLP Document 5 Filed 10/22/25 Page 3 of 4

4
ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 2025.
Case 5:25-cv-01049-SLP Document 5 Filed 10/22/25 Page 4 of 4