Mills v. State of Texas

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
JEREMY WAYNE MILLS, §
TDCJ No. 02262147, §
§
Petitioner, §
§ No. 3:26-cv-775-S-BN
V. §
§
DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, §
§
Respondent. §
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner Jeremy Wayne Mills filed this action for federal habeas relief under
28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Dkt. Nos. 3, 4. The presiding United States district judge
referred the case to the undersigned United States magistrate judge for pretrial
management under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference.
Mills filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) but did not
attach a certificate of trust account (“CTA”). See Dkt. No. 6. So the undersigned
entered a notice of deficiency and order requiring Mills to submit a CTA. See Dkt. No.
7. Mills has now submitted the required CTA. See Dkt. No. 10.
And the undersigned enters these findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
recommendation that the Court should deny the IFP motion; order that Mills pay the
filing fee; and, if he fails to do so within a reasonable time, dismiss this action without
prejudice for failure to prosecute and obey an order of the Court.
The IFP statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, “was designed to ensure that litigants would
not be deprived of meaningful access to the federal judicial system due to their
Case 3:26-cv-00775-S-BN Document 12 Filed 04/03/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID <pageID>

- 2 -
financial circumstances.” Bucklew v. St. Clair, No. 3:18-cv-2117-N-BH, 2019 WL
2250886, at *2 (N.D. Tex. May 15, 2019) (citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324
(1989)), rec. accepted, 2019 WL 2249718 (N.D. Tex. May 24, 2019). But, to gain access,
“[a] litigant seeking IFP status must submit an affidavit identifying all assets he
possesses, as well as a statement that he is unable to pay the necessary fees of
bringing a federal civil action.” Smith-Garcia v. Harrison Cnty., 776 F. App’x 226, 227
(5th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1)).
The Court must then examine the financial condition of the applicant to
determine whether the payment of fees would “cause undue financial hardship.”
Prows v. Kastner, 842 F.2d 138, 140 (5th Cir. 1988). “This entails a review of other
demands on individual [applicants’] financial resources, including whether the
expenses are discretionary or mandatory.” Id.
And, while “[t]he term ‘undue financial hardship’ is not defined and, therefore,
is a flexible concept[,] ... a pragmatic rule of thumb contemplates that undue financial
hardship results when prepayment of fees or costs would result in the applicant’s
inability to pay for the ‘necessities of life.’” Walker v. Univ. of Tex. Med. Branch, No.
1:08-CV-417, 2008 WL 4873733, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2008) (citing Adkins v. E.I.
DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948)); see also Williams v. Louisiana,
Civ. A. No. 14-00154-BAJ-EWD, 2017 WL 3124332, at *1 (M.D. La. Apr. 14, 2017)
(noting that the applicable standard “requires a showing of more than an
inconvenience to the applicant” (citations omitted)).
For inmates, the amount of money available in their prison trust account or
Case 3:26-cv-00775-S-BN Document 12 Filed 04/03/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID <pageID>

- 3 -
from other sources should be considered. See Prows, 842 F.2d at 140; Simon v.
Quarterman, No. 3:07-cv-1793-D, 2007 WL 4167943, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 20, 2007);
see also Williams v. Spencer, 455 F. Supp. 205, 209 (D. Md. 1978) (“[W]hether the
litigant is ‘unable to pay’ the costs [associated with initiating a lawsuit also] ...
depend[s] in part on [the] litigant’s actual ability to get funds from a spouse, a parent,
an adult sibling, or other next friend.”).
The certificate of inmate trust account (“CTA”) attached to Mills’s IFP motion
reflects that the average monthly deposits for his accounts for the last six months
were $94.67, and although the average monthly balance for his account for the last
six months was $28.24, his current balance was $153.62. See Dkt. No. 10. As the filing
fee for a habeas case is just $5, even though Mills is incarcerated, the verified
information in his CTA reflects that he can afford to pay that filing fee without
incurring undue financial hardship.
Recommendation
The Court should deny Petitioner Jeremy Wayne Mills leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, see Dkt. No. 6, and order that he pay the $5 filing fee within 21 days
of any order accepting or adopting this recommendation (or within some other
reasonable time to be set by the Court), and, if he fails to do so, the Court should
dismiss this action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b)
without further notice.
A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on
all parties in the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these
Case 3:26-cv-00775-S-BN Document 12 Filed 04/03/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID <pageID>

- 4 -
findings, conclusions, 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). In order 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 findings, conclusions, 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 Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).
DATED: April 3, 2026
_________________________________________
DAVID L. HORAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-00775-S-BN Document 12 Filed 04/03/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID <pageID>