King v. Oklahoma Department of Corrections

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CHRISTOPHER LAMAR KING, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-25-1278-SLP
)
OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF )
CORRECTIONS, )
)
Defendant. )
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Christopher Lamar King, proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint
seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. 1. He also filed an Application to Proceed in
District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“Application”), Doc. 3, which was referred
to the undersigned Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C).
After review, the undersigned recommends that the Court deny the Application.
I. Background
On November 7, 2025, the undersigned explained that the Application was
“deficient as it does not provide sufficient financial information for the Court to determine
whether Plaintiff has ‘a financial inability to pay the required filing fee.’” Doc. 5 at 1
(quoting Lister v. Dep’t of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005)). The
undersigned ordered Plaintiff to cure the deficiencies by filing an amended application not
later than December 1, 2025. Id. at 2.
The Court’s ECF docket indicates that, as of this date, Plaintiff has failed to comply
with the Order, as he has not submitted an amended application. Nor has Plaintiff
Case 5:25-cv-01278-SLP Document 6 Filed 12/02/25 Page 1 of 4

2
attempted to show good cause for his failure to comply or requested an extension of time
in which to comply.
II. Analysis
The filing fee for a civil case in this Court is $405.00.1 Courts have discretion in
deciding whether to grant a civil litigant permission to proceed without prepayment of fees
or costs—that is, in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Lister, 408 F.3d at 1312.
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) (citation modified). To succeed
on an application to proceed IFP, the movant must show “a financial inability to pay the
required filing fees.” Lister, 408 F.3d at 1312.
An incomplete application to proceed IFP is often insufficient to establish that IFP
status should be granted. See Lister, 408 F.3d at 1313 (“We conclude that the district court
did not abuse its discretion in denying IFP status after [plaintiff], having been specifically
instructed on how to establish indigent status, failed to fill out the proper forms or to
otherwise provide the district court with the requisite information.”). Here, as previously
explained to Plaintiff:
Plaintiff attests that he is unemployed and has no income from any source;
no cash, checking or savings account; and no assets. Application at 1-2.
Plaintiff additionally attests that he has no regular monthly expenses. Id.
at 2. However, the Court presumes Plaintiff has regular living expenses such
as, for instance, a cell phone, housing, utilities, food, and transportation.
Plaintiff also attests that his mother is dependent on him for support, but does
not explain how much he contributes to her support (as required by the
1 The total filing fee includes a base fee of $350.00 plus an administrative fee of $55.00.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Judicial Conf. Sched. of Fees, Dist. Ct. Misc. Fee Sched. ¶ 14.
Case 5:25-cv-01278-SLP Document 6 Filed 12/02/25 Page 2 of 4

3
application form). Id. Plaintiff must explain to the Court what his monthly
expenses are, including how much he pays as support for his mother, and
how he meets these expenses with no income and no assets.
Doc. 5 at 1. The Court also explained that “if Plaintiff relies on someone for financial
support, their financial resources must be included in the Application.” Id. at 2. Plaintiff,
however, did not provide any of the required information to the Court. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s Application is insufficient to grant him IFP status.2
III. Recommendation and Notice of Right to Object
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that the Court DENY
Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs.
Doc. 3. The undersigned further recommends that if Plaintiff does not pay the $405.00
filing fee in full to the Clerk of Court within 21 days of any order adopting this Report and
Recommendation, that this action be dismissed without prejudice to refiling, pursuant to
Local Civil Rule 3.3(e).
Plaintiff is advised of his right to object to this Report and Recommendation. See
28 U.S.C. § 636. Any objection must be filed with the Clerk of Court by December 23,
2025. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to object timely waives
the right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues addressed in this Report and
Recommendation. See Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).
2 The undersigned also reviewed Plaintiff’s complaint for any “reasoned, nonfrivolous
argument on the law and facts in support of the issues raised.” Lister, 408 F.3d at 1312.
Given that Plaintiff seeks monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against an entity of
the State of Oklahoma, the undersigned finds this consideration also weighs against
granting Plaintiff’s Application. However, a review of Plaintiff’s deficient Application
alone is sufficient to deny the IFP request.
Case 5:25-cv-01278-SLP Document 6 Filed 12/02/25 Page 3 of 4

4
This Report and Recommendation disposes of all issues referred to the undersigned
Magistrate Judge in this matter.
ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 2025.
Case 5:25-cv-01278-SLP Document 6 Filed 12/02/25 Page 4 of 4