Richard v. CDI Products LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
Tanisha Richard,
Plaintiff,
v.
CDI Products LLC,
Defendant.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action H-26-537
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed
in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. ECF No. 7. The
court recommends that the Application be DENIED.
1. Legal Standard and Analysis
Plaintiff 	Tanisha 	Richard 	requests 	to 	proceed 	in 	forma
pauperis. ECF No. 7. The court may grant in forma pauperis status
to an indigent litigant “who submits an affidavit that includes a
statement of all assets such [person] possesses that the person is
unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(1).
“[A] district court’s determination of whether a party may
proceed in forma pauperis must be based solely upon economic
criteria.” Gibbs v. Jackson, 92 F.4th 566, 569 (5th Cir. 2024).
“[T]here 	is 	no 	requirement 	that 	an 	individual 	‘be 	absolutely
destitute’ or spend ‘the last dollar they have’ towards the payment
of court costs to enjoy the benefit of in forma pauperis status.” Id.
(citing 	Adkins 	v. 	E.I. 	Du 	Pont 	De 	Nemours 	& 	Co., 	Inc., 	335
U.S. 331, 337 (1948)). The question is whether the litigant can
afford the costs without undue financial hardship or deprivation of
“the necessities of life.” Martinez v. Tex. Gen. Land Office, No. 25-
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 17, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:26-cv-00537 Document 8 Filed 03/17/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
CV-01745, 2025 WL 3259304, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 3, 2025) (citing
Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339).
Courts 	consider 	the 	litigant’s 	financial 	resources 	and
expenses 	and 	whether 	those 	expenses 	are 	discretionary 	or
mandatory. Moates v. Biden, No. 22-CV-0626, 2022 WL 3566451,
at *1 (W.D. Tex. June 29, 2022) (citing Prows v. Kastner, 842
F.2d 138, 140 (5th Cir. 1988)), R. & R. adopted, 2022 WL 18110176
(W.D. Tex. Oct. 18, 2022). Courts may look to where the litigant’s
reported income is in relation to applicable poverty guidelines. Id.
Richard does not report whether she is employed, but she
also states that her gross pay is $38,000 and that her take-home
pay is $1,100 every two weeks. ECF No. 7 at 1. Richard also states
that she has not received any income from a business or profession
in the last twelve months. Id. Richard states that she has $800 in
cash or a checking account and that she owns a car worth $5,000.
Id. 	at 	1–2. 	Richard 	reports 	that 	her 	monthly 	expenses 	total
approximately $2,173. Id. at 2. Richard did not report any other
expenses, and she does not have any dependents. Id.
The poverty guideline for an individual with no dependents
is $15,960. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Serv., Office of the
Assistant 	Sec’y 	for 	Planning 	and 	Evaluation, 	HHS 	Poverty
Guidelines 	for 	2026, 	https://aspe.hhs.gov/topics/poverty-econo
mic-mobility/poverty-guidelines 	(last 	visited 	Mar. 	13, 	2026).
Richard’s annual household income is well above the poverty
guideline. Her income appears to exceed her reported expenses
each month. Thus, Richard’s financial affidavit does not show that
paying the court costs and fees would cause her undue financial
hardship or deprivation of “the necessities of life.” Cf. Moates, 2022
WL 3566451 at *1; see also Linwood v. Fin. Am., LLC, No. 24-CV-
01963, 	2024 	WL 	3682299, 	at 	*1 	(N.D. 	Tex. 	Aug. 	6, 	2024).
Accordingly, 	the 	court 	recommends 	that 	Richard’s 	request 	to
proceed in forma pauperis be DENIED.
Case 4:26-cv-00537 Document 8 Filed 03/17/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
2. Conclusion
The court recommends that Richard’s Application to Proceed
in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, ECF No. 7, be
DENIED.
The 	parties 	have 	fourteen 	days 	from 	service 	of 	this
Memorandum and Recommendation to file written objections. 28
U.S.C. 	§ 636(b)(1); 	Fed. 	R. 	Civ. 	P. 	72. 	Failure 	to 	timely 	file
objections will preclude appellate review of factual findings or legal
conclusions, 	except 	for 	plain 	error. 	See 	Thomas 	v. 	Arn, 	474
U.S. 140, 147–49 (1985); Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276–
77 (5th Cir. 1988).
Signed at Houston, Texas on March 13, 2026.
______________________________________
Peter Bray
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:26-cv-00537 Document 8 Filed 03/17/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3