Scott v. United States of America et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CHRISTOPHER SCOTT, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-26-379-G
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff has filed an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying
Fees or Costs (“IFP Application,” an application to proceed in forma pauperis). (Doc. 2).
United States District Judge Charles B. Goodwin referred the motion to the undersigned
Magistrate Judge consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). (Doc. 3).
The filing fee in civil cases is presently $405.00.1 	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 [IFP] status under § 1915 lies within the sound discretion
of the trial court.”).
1 The total filing fee includes a base fee of $350.00 and 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 5:26-cv-00379-G Document 4 Filed 03/03/26 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). 	To 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) (citation omitted).
Having reviewed the IFP Application, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff has
sufficient financial resources to pay the filing fee. 	Plaintiff earns $1,103.87 every two
weeks in take-home pay – or $2,391.72 per month. (Doc. 2, at 1). He currently has $40.00
in a checking or savings account. Plaintiff lists expenses – including the support he gives
to his grandson – in the amount of $1,596.00.2 (Id. at 2). Thus, after expenses, Plaintiff
has $795.72 in discretionary spending from which he could pay the filing fee in this action.
“While this Court does not suggest that [Plaintiff] is wealthy or has lots of money to spend,”
the court finds he “has the ability to spend [ ] discretionary funds on filing fees if [he]
desires.” Lewis v. Ctr. Mkt., 2009 WL 5217343, at *3 (D.N.M. Oct. 29, 2009), aff’d, 378
F. App’x 780 (10th Cir. 2010).
2 Plaintiff states that he has $41,088 in total debt attributable to credit cards and a car loan.
(Doc. 2, at 2). Plaintiff included his car payment in his regular monthly expenses, so the
undersigned considered this debt. 	Plaintiff did not include any monthly payment for his
credit card debt, so the undersigned did not find the credit card debt to be a significant
factor in his ability to pay the filing fee.
Case 5:26-cv-00379-G Document 4 Filed 03/03/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Because he does not qualify for authorization to proceed without prepayment of the
filing fee, Plaintiff’s motion 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 the court DENY Plaintiff’s
IFP Application (Doc. 2). The undersigned further recommends that if Plaintiff does not
pay the $405.00 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).
Plaintiff is advised of his right to file an objection to this Report and
Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court by March 24, 2026, 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 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 3rd day of March, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00379-G Document 4 Filed 03/03/26 Page 3 of 3