Washington v. Marriott International Inc et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
LESTER E. WASHINGTON, JR., §
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § No. 3:25-cv-02868-S (BT)
§
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL
INC., et al.,
§
§
Defendants. §
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Lester E. Washington, Jr. seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(IFP) in this pro se civil action. See generally IFP App. (ECF No. 5). For the reasons
stated, the Court should deny Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed IFP and
dismiss his case without prejudice unless he pays the $405.00 filing fee within 30
days of an order accepting this recommendation.
Legal Standard and Analysis
A federal district court may authorize a person to bring a civil action IFP—
that is, without the prepayment of fees—when the person submits an affidavit
establishing he is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(1). The goal of this provision is to allow access to federal courts for litigants
who lack the financial resources to pay any part of the statutory filing costs. Prows
v. Kastner, 842 F.2d 138, 140 (5th Cir. 1988). The Court must examine the
financial condition of the applicant to determine whether the payment of fees
would “cause undue financial hardship.” Id. “This entails a review of other
Case 3:25-cv-02868-S-BT Document 6 Filed 01/20/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID <pageID>

2
demands on individual plaintiff’s financial resources, including whether the
expenses are discretionary or mandatory.” Id. The Court may require a plaintiff to
complete a financial affidavit in support of a motion to proceed IFP. Nottingham
v. Warden, Bill Clements Unit, 837 F.3d 438, 439-40 (5th Cir. 2016). Further, the
court may “look to where the litigant’s reported income is in relation to applicable
poverty guidelines.” Moates v. Biden, 2022 WL 3566451, at *1 (W.D. Tex. June 29,
2022), rec. accepted 2022 WL 18110176 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 18, 2022).
Here, Plaintiff and his spouse collectively receive approximately $9,500
each month from unemployment and employment, respectively. IFP App. at 1.
Plaintiff also owns a home, three vehicles, and stocks worth approximately $8,500.
Id.
Based on the information provided, the Court cannot conclude that payment
of the $405.00 filing fee would cause Plaintiff undue financial hardship. Plaintiff
and his spouse receive a substantial monthly income. This income places him well
above the federal poverty threshold for a seven-person household in Texas. See
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR PLANNING AND EVALUATION, HHS Poverty
Guidelines for 2025, https://aspe.hhs.gov/topics/poverty-economic-
mobility/poverty-guidelines (last visited Jan. 20, 2026).
Plaintiff’s claimed expenses do not exceed his income—resulting in a
reported gross monthly surplus of approximately $2,485. See IFP App. at 1–2. But
even if Plaintiff’s claimed expenses did exceed his net income, this does not
indicate that payment of the filing fee would cause Plaintiff undue hardship.
Case 3:25-cv-02868-S-BT Document 6 Filed 01/20/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID <pageID>

3
First, Plaintiff owns a home (of unspecified value) and three vehicles—two
of which are luxury brands. Id. at 1. Courts in this Circuit have denied applications
to proceed IFP in similar circumstances. See Powell v. Gov. Federal Rsrv. of New
York, 2014 WL 1883672, at *2 (S.D. Miss. May 12, 2014) (denying IFP application
where the plaintiff had valuable assets including a home and a luxury vehicle)
Second, it appears that at least some of Plaintiff’s expenses are discretionary
and/or excessive. This includes $375 in credit card payments. Id. at 2. Such
expenses do not support waiver of the filing fee. See Dobbins v. Kroger Co., 2009
WL 186141, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2009) (denying IFP application because,
among other things, certain expenses “appear[ed] excessive without further
detailed explanations”); Ramsey v. NFI Indus., 2022 WL 707234, at *1 (N.D. Tex.
Feb. 18, 2022), rec. accepted 2022 WL 705965 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 9, 2022) (treating
credit card expenses as discretionary).
Recommendation
The Court should DENY Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 5) and dismiss his case without prejudice unless he pays the
$405.00 filing fee within 30 days of an order accepting this recommendation.
SO RECOMMENDED.
January 20, 2026.
____________________________
REBECCA RUTHERFORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-02868-S-BT Document 6 Filed 01/20/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID <pageID>

4
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
A copy of this report and recommendation shall 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); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). To be specific,
an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to which
objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify 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-02868-S-BT Document 6 Filed 01/20/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID <pageID>