Kolobotos v. Lin

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
ANGELOS KOLOBOTOS, 	§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	No. 3:25-CV-3559-E-BW
§
XIAOMIN LIN, 	§
Defendant. 	§ 	Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge1
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Angelos Kolobotos, proceeding pro se in this action, has filed a
motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in this action. (See Dkt. Nos. 4, 6.)
Based on the relevant filings and applicable law, the Court should DENY the motion
and dismiss this case unless he pays the $405.00 filing fee during the 14-day period in
which he may submit objections to this recommendation.
I. BACKGROUND
On December 30, 2025, Kolobotos filed a complaint against Defendant
Xiamin Lin asserting a claim for malicious prosecution under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (See
Dkt. No. 3.) Acknowledging that Lin is a private individual, Kolobotos alleges that
Lin caused Kolobotos to be arrested and jailed overnight based on a civil dispute
about the sale of a vehicle and unpaid labor. (Id. at 2.)
1 By Special Order No. 3-251, this pro se case has been automatically referred to the
undersigned magistrate judge for case management. (See Dkt. No. 1.)
Case 3:25-cv-03559-E-BW Document 9 Filed 02/06/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID <pageID>

2
When he filed his complaint, Kolobotos also filed a motion to proceed IFP.
(Dkt. No. 4.) In his self-drafted motion, Kolobotos stated generally that he is on
social security, has “limited income,” and that he does not have sufficient savings or
liquid assets to pay the filing fee without incurring substantial financial hardship.
(See id.) But he did not state with any particularity his income, assets, liabilities, or
regular monthly expenses. (See id.) On December 31, therefore, the undersigned
ordered Kolobotos to complete and return an Application to Proceed in District
Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) and return it within 14 days.
(Dkt. No. 5.) The Clerk of Court delivered a copy of the form to Kolobotos with that
order. (See id.)
Kolobotos did not complete and return the form IFP application as ordered.
Instead, on January 16, 2026, he submitted a partially completed Statement of
Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs or an Appeal Bond that is apparently
used in Texas state courts. (Dkt. No. 6.) That document provides some, but not all,
of the information the undersigned determined is necessary to assess his request for
IFP status. So, on January 21, 2026, the undersigned issued a Second Notice of
Deficiency, Order, and Instructions to Plaintiff directing him again to complete and
file the Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs
(Long Form) and return it within 14 days. (Dkt. No. 8.)2 The undersigned warned
2 This order, like the first, also directed Kolobotos to register as an Electronic Case
Filing (“ECF”) system user. (See Dkt. Nos. 5, 8.) He has not done so.
Case 3:25-cv-03559-E-BW Document 9 Filed 02/06/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID <pageID>

3
Kolobotos that failure to comply with the order could result in dismissal of this
action. (See id. at 2.)
The extended deadline for Kolobotos to complete and submit the proper IFP
application has passed, and he has not filed the IFP motion.
II. LEGAL STANDARDS AND ANALYSIS
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a federal district court may authorize a person
to bring a civil action in forma pauperis (“IFP”) when she submits an affidavit
establishing her financial inability to pay or give security for applicable court fees
“without suffering undue financial hardship.” Prows v. Kastner, 842 F.2d 138, 140
(5th Cir. 1988). To determine whether the payment of fees would cause undue
financial hardship, the Court must examine the applicant’s financial condition. See
id. “This entails a review of other demands on individual plaintiffs’ financial
resources, including whether the expenses are discretionary or mandatory.” Id. In
addition to requiring an applicant to complete a financial affidavit in support of his
request to proceed IFP, the Court may also “look to where the litigant’s reported
income is in relation to applicable poverty guidelines.” Moates v. Biden, No. 6:22-CV-
00626-ADA-JCM, 2022 WL 3566451, at *1 (W.D. Tex. June 29, 2022).
As explained above, Kolobotos has not provided sufficient information to
establish that IFP status is appropriate in this action despite being given opportunities
to provide the necessary information. He has not satisfied his burden to show that
payment of the $405.00 filing fee would cause and undue financial hardship or that
he is entitled to IFP status. See Linwood v. Finance America, LLC, No. 3:24-CV-1963-
Case 3:25-cv-03559-E-BW Document 9 Filed 02/06/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID <pageID>

4
B-BT, 2024 WL 3682299, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2024). The District Judge should
therefore deny his pending motions to proceed IFP in this action and dismiss this
action unless Kolobotos pays the filing fee within the period allowed for objections to
this recommendation. (See Dkt. Nos. 4, 6.)
III. RECOMMENDATION
The Court should DENY the Plaintiff Angelos Kolobotos’s motion to proceed
in forma pauperis (Dkt. Nos. 4, 6) and DISMISS this action without prejudice unless
he pays the $405.00 filing fee by February 20, 2026, which concludes the 14-day
period during which he may make objections to these findings, conclusions, and
recommendation.
SO RECOMMENDED on February 6, 2026.
____________________________________
BRIAN McKAY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-03559-E-BW Document 9 Filed 02/06/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID <pageID>

5
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
A copy of this report and recommendation will be served on all parties in the
manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and
recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being
served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); F ED . R. C IV. P. 72(b). To be specific,
an objection must identify the finding or recommendation to which objection is
made, state the basis for the objection, and indicate the place in the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An
objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the
magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will bar the
aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the
magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon
grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415,
1417 (5th Cir. 1996), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
(extending the time to file objections to 14 days).
Case 3:25-cv-03559-E-BW Document 9 Filed 02/06/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID <pageID>