Duve v. Forrest et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
GALVESTON DIVISION
SUSAN ELIZABETH DUVE,
Plaintiff.
V.
WILLIAM CHARLES FOREST, et
al.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:26-cv-00158
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
“The federal in forma pauperis statute, enacted in 1892 and presently
codified as 28 U.S.C. § 1915, is designed to ensure that indigent litigants have
meaningful access to the federal courts.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324
(1989). The statute “allows a litigant to commence a civil or criminal action in
federal court in forma pauperis by filing in good faith an affidavit stating, inter
alia, that he is unable to pay the costs of the lawsuit.” Id. Because “a litigant whose
filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks
an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive
lawsuits,” id., federal courts are authorized to dismiss a claim filed in forma
pauperis “at any time if the court determines that . . . the allegation of poverty is
untrue.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A). “To determine whether a particular order
causes undue financial hardship, a court must examine the financial condition of
the in forma pauperis applicant. This entails a review of other demands on
individual plaintiffs’ financial resources, including whether the expenses are
discretionary or mandatory.” Prows v. Kastner, 842 F.2d 138, 140 (5th Cir. 1988).
Here, Plaintiff reports having $1,000 of emergency cash on hand, $1,071 in
a checking account, $1,500 in a savings account, and an employee stock ownership
plan with “approximately $160,000 remaining.” Dkt. 2 at 2. Plaintiff also reports
assets totaling approximately $293,000. See id.
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
May 21, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 3:26-cv-00158 Document 17 Filed 05/21/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2
Plaintiff seems to believe that because none of these funds or assets
constitute “income,” that she should not be forced to pay the filing fee. Id. at 3.
Specifically, Plaintiff contends that “paying the $402 filing fee would cause [her]
significant hardship by further reducing [her] ability to pay for basic necessities.”
Id. That is true of every discretionary expense in life. But the standard is not
whether paying the filing fee would reduce Plaintiff’s ability to pay for necessities.
The standard is whether “one cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for
the costs and still be able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities
of life.” Rowland v. Cali. Men’s Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S.
194, 203 (1993). Plaintiff will have $402 less if she pays the filing fee, but she will
still be able to provide herself with the necessities of life. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
application for IFP status (Dkt. 2) is DENIED. Plaintiff must pay the $402 filing
fee to proceed with this litigation.
If Plaintiff does not pay the filing fee by Friday, May 29, 2026,
this action will be dismissed without prejudice.
Plaintiff 	has 	14 	days 	from 	service 	of 	this 	Memorandum 	and
Recommendation to file written objections. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to file timely objections will preclude appellate review of
factual findings and legal conclusions, except for plain error.
SIGNED this 	day of May 2026.
______________________________
ANDREW M. EDISON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-00158 Document 17 Filed 05/21/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2