Mehta v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
NEIL RAVI MEHTA 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	Civil No. 2:26-cv-02030-TLB-MEF
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 	DEFENDANT
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	Currently before the Court is
Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal and his Application to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF Nos.
3, 3-1). The Motion has been referred to the undersigned.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his Complaint and Application to Proceed IFP on March 9, 2026. (ECF Nos.
2, 3, 3-1). The IFP application was filed under seal at Plaintiff’s request. (ECF No. 3).
In his application, Plaintiff admits to ownership of over $11 million dollars in assets. (ECF
No. 3-1 at 3). 	He also admits to significant monthly self-employment income. 	(Id. at 2). 	He
states, however, that he is unable to access the assets because he is unable “to operate the associated
companies, partnerships, and corporations.” 	(Id. at 7). 	He also references “seizures, litigation,
forfeiture proceedings.” (Id.). Plaintiff does not, however, provide any factual details concerning
these assets, or his alleged inability to access them. 	Plaintiff also states he is unable to access
“ordinary financial services necessary to transact funds within the United States.” (Id. at 6). He
also states he is unable to bank. (Id. at 2). Plaintiff lays the blame for this inability to bank on
being “listed with the TSC database,” being “flagged within banking risk management systems,”
and having “encountered restrictions associated with the Office of Foreign Assets Control.” (Id.
Case 2:26-cv-02030-TLB Document 7 Filed 03/12/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
at 6). Plaintiff provides no further details or documentation of any of his allegations concerning
his “inability to bank.” Plaintiff lists no average monthly expenses. (Id. at 4-5).
II. 	ANALYSIS
Federal courts have the statutory authority to permit the commencement of a civil action
without prepayment of fees or costs by a person who submits an affidavit that he or she is unable
to pay such costs or give security therefor. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The purpose of 28 U.S.C. § 1915
is to ensure that indigent litigants have an entry, not a barrier, to the federal courts. 	In re
Williamson, 786 F.2d 1336, 1338 (8th Cir. 1986) (quoting Souder v. McGuire, 516 F.2d 820, 823
(3rd Cir. 1975)). Although a claimant need not be “completely destitute” to take advantage of the
IFP statute, he or she must show that paying the filing fee would result in an undue financial
hardship. Williamson, 786 F.2d at 1338.
Plaintiff’s IFP application reveals that he has over $11 million dollars in assets and an
average monthly income from self-employment of $7,000.00 to $12,000.00. He states he is unable
to access the assets and is unable to bank. 	Plaintiff does not, however, provide any details or
documentation concerning these alleged limitations. 	Nor does he indicate how being unable to
open a bank account prevents him from paying the filing fee for this case. Plaintiff’s vague and
conclusory allegations concerning access to funds and income is insufficient to support his IFP
application.
Section 1915 is designed to protect those litigants who suffer from true financial hardship,
not those who are well-equipped to pay the filing fee but choose to allocate their resources in a
different manner. As such, Plaintiff has not shown that paying the filing fee would create an undue
financial hardship. For these reasons, the undersigned finds that a waiver of the filing fee would
be inappropriate in this instance.
Case 2:26-cv-02030-TLB Document 7 Filed 03/12/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
III. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s IFP Application (ECF No. 3-1) be
DENIED.
The parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation
in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely
objections may result in a waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. 	The parties are
reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the
district court.
DATED this 12th day of March 2026.
/s/
Mark E. Ford
HON. MARK E. FORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:26-cv-02030-TLB Document 7 Filed 03/12/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>