Corral v. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 7:26-cv-00267 Document5- Filed 07/07/26in TXSD Pagelof4
United States District Court

Southem District of Texas
ENTERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT July 07, 2026
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
MCALLEN DIVISION
MICHAEL CORRAL, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:26-CV-267
§
JEFFERSON CAPITAL SYSTEMS, LLC, §
§
Defendant. §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Michael Corral, proceeding pro se, initiated this civil action “seeking damages in
the amount of $35,000.00 for willful and negligent violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act...
and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.” (Docket No. 1, at 1.) Pending is Plaintiff's
“Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs.” (Docket No. 2.)
Plaintiff seeks in forma pauperis (IFP) status in order to proceed with his lawsuit without paying
the required $405 filing fee. As discussed below, because Plaintiff has failed to show that he is
unable to pay the filing fee, the undersigned recommends that his IFP application be denied.

I. DISCUSSION

As noted, Plaintiff filed this action seeking monetary damages based on alleged violations
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. In his Complaint,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated his rights as a consumer and debtor by (among other
things) improperly acquiring his loan and by reporting duplicate debt amounts to his credit report.
(Docket No. 1, at 2-6.) As relief, Plaintiff seeks a monetary judgment against Defendant “in the

total amount of $35,000.00.” (/d. at 16.)

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 7:26-cv-00267 Document5~ Filed 07/07/26in TXSD Page 2of4

To qualify to proceed without paying the filing fee, an applicant must show that he is
financially “unable to pay such fees.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The applicant need not “be absolutely
destitute,” but rather he must demonstrate by affidavit that because of his poverty, he cannot “pay
or give security for the costs . . . and still be able to provide himself and his dependents with the
necessities of life.” Adkins v. DuPont Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). In actions for civil damages,
like Plaintiffs case, IFP applications are to be granted more sparingly. Flowers v. Turbine Support
Div., 507 F.2d 1242, 1244 (Sth Cir. 1975) (superseded on other grounds) (“[I]n civil cases for
damages... the courts should grant the privilege sparingly.”).

Considering Plaintiffs financial affidavit in light of this standard, he has failed to show
that he is unable to pay the filing fee. To begin with, in his pending “Application to Proceed in
District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs,” Plaintiff acknowledges that he is currently
employed by Spectrum, earning $1,630 in “gross pay or wages.” (Docket No. 2, at 1.)
Notwithstanding his gainful employment, he only has $47.51 “in cash or in a checking or savings
account.” (/d. at 2.) In addition, Plaintiff is the sole provider for two small children, and he lists
his many monthly expenses and his debts. (/d.) However, Plaintiff also notes that he has been
able to make large purchases recently, such as a 2021 Honda Accord valued at $21,000, and a 2025
Kawasaki motorcycle valued at $14,000. (/d.) These purchases are inconsistent with his assertion
that he is unable to afford to pay the $405 filing fee to proceed with this civil action. Simply put,
Plaintiff has failed to show that he is unable to pay the filing fee. See Braxton v. Takata Corp.,
No. 18-cv-712, 2018 WL 3147949, at *2 (W.D. La. June 4, 2018) (recommending denial of IFP
where the Plaintiff had a total monthly income of $2,230, based on Social Security and retirement
benefits), report and recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 3131033 (W.D. La. June 26, 2018);

Duru v. Schreiner, No. 14-cv-3653, 2014 WL 12580490, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2014) (noting

Case 7:26-cv-00267 Document5- Filed 07/07/26in TXSD Page 3of4

that disability benefits are regularly taken into consideration and recommending denial of IFP
where the plaintiff received $1,846/month in benefits), report and recommendation adopted, No.
3:14-CV-3653-L, 2014 WL 12580491 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 3, 2014).

In addition, Section 1915(e)(2) provides that “the court shall dismiss the case at any time
if the court determines that . . . the allegation of poverty is untrue.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A).
Here, the District Court might be justified in dismissing Plaintiff's action with prejudice in light
of the assertions he details in his application. However, in the interest of justice, it is recommended
that Plaintiffs IFP application be denied without prejudice and that he be given an additional thirty
(30) days with which to pay the $405 filing fee.

I. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned respectfully recommends that Plaintiff's
“Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs” (Docket No. 2) be
DENIED. It is further recommended that Plaintiff be given an additional thirty (30) days to pay
the required $405 filing fee.

NOTICE

The Clerk shall send a copy of this Report and Recommendation to Plaintiff, who has
fourteen (14) days after receipt thereof to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Failure to file timely written
objections shall bar an aggrieved party from receiving a de novo review by the District Court on
an issue covered in this Report and, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal
the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District Court.

DONE at McAllen, Texas on July 7, 2026.

Case 7:26-cv-00267
Document 5 Filed 07/07/26 in TXSD Page 4 of 4
Nadia S. Medrano UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
4