Garber v. Ulster County et al

- 1 -
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
HELEN REBEKAH GARBER,
Plaintiff,
1:26-CV-408
v. 	(AJB/DJS)
ULSTER COUNTY, including its
agencies, et al.,
Defendants.
APPEARANCES:
HELEN REBEKAH GARBER
Plaintiff, Pro Se
Port Ewen, New York 12466
DANIEL J. STEWART
United States Magistrate Judge
REPORT-RECOMMENDATION and ORDER1
The Clerk of the Court has sent to the undersigned for review a Motion for Leave
to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (the “Motion”) filed by pro se Plaintiff. Dkt. No. 2.2 For
the reasons explained below, the Court recommends that the Motion be DENIED.
1 “A decision to deny or revoke IFP status [ ] is generally regarded as dispositive and thus falls outside [a magistrate
judge’s] purview.” Carro v. Gaul, 2025 WL 3963357, at *2 n.4 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2025) (alterations in original)
(quotations and internal quotation marks omitted) (citing, inter alia, Kiobel v. Millson, 592 F.3d 78, 92 (2d Cir.
2010)), report and recommendation adopted, 2025 WL 3521300 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2025).
2 Citations to the Motion are to page numbers provided by the Court’s CM/ECF system.
Case 1:26-cv-00408-AJB-DJS Document 6 Filed 04/10/26 Page 1 of 4

- 2 -
A court may authorize a litigant to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) if it
determines that she is unable to pay the filing fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). “The decision
of whether to grant an application to proceed IFP rests within the sound discretion of the
court.” 	Virola v. Gonyo, 2024 WL 5361071, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 2, 2024) (citation
omitted), report and recommendation adopted, 2025 WL 317243 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 28,
2025).3
As a standard for determining eligibility for IFP status, section 1915(a)(1)
does not set financial guideposts; instead, the statute merely provides that
IFP status may be granted when the court is satisfied “that the person is
unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
To make this threshold showing a plaintiff must demonstrate “that paying
such fees would constitute a serious hardship on the plaintiff, not that such
payment would render plaintiff destitute.” Fiebelkorn v. U. S., 77 Fed. Cl.
at 62 (citing Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339,
69 S. Ct. 85 (1948)). Put another way, section 1915(a)(1) does not require
a 	showing 	of 	absolute 	destitution 	to 	qualify 	for 	IFP 	status. 	Lee 	v.
McDonald’s Corp., 231 F.3d 456, 458 (8th Cir. 2000). As the Second
Circuit has noted, “[n]o party must be made to choose between abandoning
a potential meritorious claim or foregoing the necessities of life.” Potnick
v. Eastern State Hosp., 701 F.2d 243, 244 (2d Cir. 1983) (citing Adkins, 335
U.S. at 339, 69 S. Ct. at 89).
Id. (quotation omitted).
Here, based upon the information provided in Plaintiff’s Motion, this Court
determines that Plaintiff has the ability to pre-pay the entire $405.00 filing fee required
to maintain this action. In particular, Plaintiff’s Motion reflects gross pay or wages in the
amount of $5,442.30 bi-weekly, Dkt. No. 2 at pp. 1 & 4-5, which equates to approximately
3 Copies of unreported cases from Westlaw are attached to this opinion for Plaintiff’s reference.
Case 1:26-cv-00408-AJB-DJS Document 6 Filed 04/10/26 Page 2 of 4

- 3 -
$141,499.80 in gross pay or wages annually. The application indicates that Plaintiff has
$1,789.48 in cash or in a checking or savings account, and an “[e]mergency fund”
containing $11,757.94. 	Id. at p. 2. The application also reflects that Plaintiffs owns an
automobile. 	Id. 	While the application lists considerable monthly expenses, as well as
significant debts or financial obligations, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s income level is
such that she does not meet the requirements in order to proceed IFP. See, e.g., Zavala v.
Cornell Univ., 2011 WL 13353099, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 13, 2011) (denying IFP
application that stated that plaintiff “earn[ed] $1,196 bi-monthly, which amount[ed] to
approximately $28,704 per year,” had $428 in cash or in checking or savings accounts,
and owned a home valued at $20,000, and “identifie[d] a spouse who [wa]s entirely
dependent upon him for economic support, as well as a daughter and granddaughter
whom he provide[d] $375 per month for economic support”); Eliacin v. Cnty. of Broome,
New York, 2009 WL 10721277, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. June 11, 2009) (denying IFP application
that indicated that plaintiff earned approximately $22,000 per year and denied that
plaintiff had any cash, checking or savings accounts, or valuable property).
The Court recommends that the District Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint if she
does not submit the filing fee, or submit additional information indicating that she is
unable to pay such fee, within thirty (30) days of the filing date of this Report-
Recommendation and Order.
Case 1:26-cv-00408-AJB-DJS Document 6 Filed 04/10/26 Page 3 of 4

- 4 -
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, it is hereby
RECOMMENDED, that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt.
No. 2) be DENIED; and it is
ORDERED, 	that 	the 	Clerk 	of 	the 	Court 	serve 	a 	copy 	of 	this 	Report-
Recommendation and Order upon the parties to this action.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the parties have fourteen (14)4 days within
which to file written objections to the foregoing report. 	Such objections shall be filed
with the Clerk of the Court. FAILURE TO OBJECT TO THIS REPORT WITHIN
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS WILL PRECLUDE APPELLATE REVIEW. 	Roldan v.
Racette, 984 F.2d 85, 89 (2d Cir. 1993) (citing Small v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs.,
892 F.2d 15 (2d Cir. 1989)); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); F ED . R. CIV . P. 72 & 6(a).
Dated: April 10, 2026
Albany, New York
4 If you are proceeding pro se and are served with this Order by mail, three additional days will be added to the
fourteen-day period, meaning that you have seventeen days from the date the order was mailed to you to serve and
file objections. F ED. R. CIV. P. 6(d). If the last day of that prescribed period falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal
holiday, then the deadline is extended until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.
FED. R. C IV. P. 6(a)(1)(C).
Case 1:26-cv-00408-AJB-DJS Document 6 Filed 04/10/26 Page 4 of 4