Gregory v. Teakell et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
MICHAEL DE’SEAN GREGORY, 	§
ID # 02408039, 	§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	No. 3:25-CV-2527-N-BW
§
JOHN R. TEAKELL, et al., 	§
Defendants. 	§ 	Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge1
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court is Plaintiff Michael De’Sean Gregory’s Application to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis, with accompanying certificate of inmate trust account
(“CTA”), received on November 6, 2025. (Dkt. No. 5.) Based on the relevant filings
and applicable law, the Court should DENY the application and dismiss Gregory’s
case without prejudice unless he pays the $405.00 filing fee by January 9, 2026, or by
some other deadline established by the Court.
I. LEGAL STANDARDS AND ANALYSIS
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2), a federal district court may authorize a prisoner
plaintiff to pursue a civil action in forma pauperis when he submits a financial
affidavit and a certified copy of his trust fund account statement, or institutional
equivalent, for the six-month period preceding the filing of his complaint that
establish his financial inability to pay or give security for applicable court fees
1 By Special Order No. 3-251, this pro se case has been automatically referred for full
case management.
Case 3:25-cv-02527-N-BW Document 6 Filed 12/10/25 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
“without suffering undue financial hardship.” Prows v. Kastner, 842 F.2d 138, 140
(5th Cir. 1988). “This entails a review of other demands on individual plaintiffs’
financial resources, including whether the expenses are discretionary or mandatory.”
Id. The determination of whether to grant or deny an application to proceed in
forma pauperis rests within the sound discretion of the Court. See id.
Here, despite a current balance of $101.40, Gregory’s application indicates
that he has received a total of $492.55 from his mother, and his CTA shows that he
has had deposits totaling $860 over the six-month period preceding the filing of his
complaint, $490 of which was deposited in the most recent three months. (See Dkt.
No. 5 at 1, 3.) These amounts show that Gregory has access to sufficient funds to
pay the full filing fee.2 Based on this information, the Court should find that
Gregory has failed to show that payment of the $405.00 filing fee would cause him
undue financial hardship and deny his application to proceed in forma pauperis.
II. RECOMMENDATION
The Court should DENY Gregory’s Application to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis, received on November 6, 2025 (Dkt. No. 5), and dismiss this case without
2 The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) requires that all prisoners who bring a
civil non-habeas action must pay the full filing fee, although the fee may be paid in
installments where leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(b)(1). As of December 1, 2023, a $55 administrative fee will be assessed in addition
to the $350 filing fee, resulting in a total filing fee of $405 for a civil action in which the
plaintiff has not sought or been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See District
Court Miscellaneous Fee Schedule. Where a prisoner plaintiff has been granted leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, only the $350 filing fee will be deducted from the prisoner’s
account. The $55 administrative fee will not be deducted.
Case 3:25-cv-02527-N-BW Document 6 Filed 12/10/25 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
prejudice unless Gregory pays the $405.00 filing fee by January 9, 2026, or by some
other deadline established by the Court.
SO RECOMMENDED on December 10, 2025.
____________________________________
BRIAN McKAY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
A copy of this report and recommendation will be served on all parties in the
manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report and
recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being
served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); F ED . R. C IV. P. 72(b). To be specific,
an objection must identify the finding or recommendation to which objection is
made, state the basis for the objection, and indicate the place in the magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An
objection that merely incorporates by reference or refers to the briefing before the
magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file specific written objections will bar the
aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the
magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except upon
grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Services Automobile Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415,
1417 (5th Cir. 1996), modified by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
(extending the time to file objections to 14 days).
Case 3:25-cv-02527-N-BW Document 6 Filed 12/10/25 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>