Hudson v. United States Postal Service et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
TINA HUDSON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-26-644-G
)
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, )
et al., )
)
Defendants. )
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Tina Hudson filed a complaint and a separate Application to Proceed in
District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“Application”). United States District
Judge Charles B. Goodwin referred the Application, Doc. 2, to the undersigned Magistrate
Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C). After review, the undersigned
recommends that the Court deny the Application.
I. Discussion
The filing fee for a civil case in this Court is $405.00.1 Courts have discretion in
deciding whether to grant a civil litigant permission to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Lister v. Dep’t of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005).
Proceeding 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) (citation modified). To succeed
1 The total filing fee includes a base fee of $350.00 plus 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 5:26-cv-00644-G Document 5 Filed 03/31/26 Page 1 of 4

2
on an application to proceed IFP, the movant must show “a financial inability to pay the
required filing fees.” Lister, 408 F.3d at 1312.
A. Factors for consideration
Factors the Court may consider in exercising its discretion include “whether the
complaint is frivolous or malicious; whether the case concerns a prisoner, with special
concern placed on prisoner complaints; and the nature of the mandatory and discretionary
demands on the applicant’s financial resources.” Brewer v. City of Overland Park Police
Dep’t, 24 F. App’x 977, 979 (10th Cir. 2002) (citation modified). The undersigned has not
reviewed the complaint. Doc. 1; see Doc. 4 (referring only the Application). But even
assuming the complaint is not frivolous or malicious, the remaining factors weigh against
granting Plaintiff’s Application. Plaintiff is not a prisoner, so the special concerns
attendant to prisoner cases do not apply.
As to the financial-resources factor, the Court may consider both income and assets.
See Lister, 408 F.3d at 1311 (noting that an applicant’s income, assets, and expenses are
relevant for consideration of an IFP application). With respect to income, the Court
considers the degree to which Plaintiff’s monthly income exceeds her monthly obligations.
See Scherer v. Kansas, 263 F. App’x 667, 669 (10th Cir. 2008) (affirming denial of IFP
status, in part, because plaintiff’s “monthly income exceeded his monthly obligations by
several hundred dollars”).
B. Plaintiff’s financial information
The undersigned has carefully considered Plaintiff’s income, assets, and expenses
as listed on her Application. Plaintiff attests that her take-home pay is $1,030.68 every two
Case 5:26-cv-00644-G Document 5 Filed 03/31/26 Page 2 of 4

3
weeks, which equates to approximately $2,233.00 per month. Doc. 2 at 1. Plaintiff states
she owns an automobile valued at $23,000.00, though she reports that she owes $23,000.00
for the vehicle. Id. at 2. She also reports $700.00 in cash or a bank account. Id. Plaintiff
further attests she has $814.00 in monthly expenses: (1) a $308.00 payment on the car loan,
(2) $100.00 for auto insurance, (3) a $120.00 for fuel, (4) $86.00 for her cell phone, and
(5) $200.00 for utilities. Id.
Based on the information provided in the Application, the undersigned recommends
the Court deny the Application. Plaintiff reports monthly take-home pay that exceeds her
monthly expenses by more than $1,400.00. In addition, Plaintiff has $700.00 available in
either cash or a bank account. “While this Court does not suggest that the plaintiff is
wealthy or has lots of money to spend, [she] does appear to have discretionary income
and/or assets and it appears that she has the ability to spend her discretionary funds on
filing fees if [she] desires.” Williams v. Oklahoma, No. CIV-16-163-R, 2016 WL 7665657,
at *2 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 23, 2016) (citation modified) (R&R), adopted, 2016 WL 7665658
(W.D. Okla. Apr. 4, 2016), aff’d, 667 F. App’x 733 (10th Cir. 2016); see also Brewer, 24
F. App’x at 979 (affirming denial of IFP status because plaintiff’s “monthly income
exceeds his monthly expenses by a few hundred dollars”). The undersigned therefore finds
Plaintiff has not shown “a financial inability to pay the required filing fees.” Lister, 408
F.3d at 1312.
II. Recommendation and Notice of Right to Object
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that the Court DENY
Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs,
Case 5:26-cv-00644-G Document 5 Filed 03/31/26 Page 3 of 4

4
Doc. 2. The undersigned further recommends that if Plaintiff does not pay the $405.00
filing fee in full to the Clerk of Court within 21 days of any order adopting this Report and
Recommendation, this action be dismissed without prejudice to refiling, pursuant to Local
Civil Rule 3.3(e).
Plaintiff is advised of her right to object to this Report and Recommendation. See
28 U.S.C. § 636. Any objection must be filed with the Clerk of this Court by April 21,
2026. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to object timely waives
the right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues addressed in this Report and
Recommendation. See Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).
This Report and Recommendation disposes of all issues referred to the undersigned
Magistrate Judge in this matter.
ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00644-G Document 5 Filed 03/31/26 Page 4 of 4