Loveless v. Oklahoma State of

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CHRIS ELROY LOVELESS,
Petitioner,
v.
STATE OF OKLAHOMA,
Respondent(s).
)
)
)
)
) 	Case No. CIV-24-1234-JD
)
)
)
)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner, a pro se state prisoner, has filed a petition for habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). He has also filed an Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis (“IFP,” without prepaying fees or costs). (Doc. 10). United States District Judge
Jodi W. Dishman referred the matter to the undersigned Magistrate Judge for initial
proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (Doc. 4).
The filing fee for an application for a writ of habeas corpus is $5.00. 28 U.S.C. §
1914(a). 	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 status
under § 1915 lies within the sound discretion of the trial court.”).
Case 5:24-cv-01234-JD Document 15 Filed 03/19/25 Page 1 of 3

2
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). “[T]o 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).
Having 	reviewed 	the 	Application, 	the 	undersigned 	finds 	that 	Petitioner 	has
sufficient financial resources to pay the filing fee, as his institutional account has a recent
balance of $53.39. 	(Doc. 10, at 3, 5; id. at Ex. 1). 	Because he does not qualify for
authorization to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, Petitioner’s Application
should be denied, and he should be required to pay the full filing fee for this action to
proceed.
RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that the court DENY
Petitioner’s Application for Leave to Proceed IFP (Doc. 10). 	The undersigned further
recommends that if Petitioner does not pay the $5.00 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).
Petitioner is advised of his right to file an objection to this Report and
Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court by April 9, 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
Case 5:24-cv-01234-JD Document 15 Filed 03/19/25 Page 2 of 3

3
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.
ENTERED this 19th day of March, 2025.
Case 5:24-cv-01234-JD Document 15 Filed 03/19/25 Page 3 of 3