Foster v. Putnam County, Ohio et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
Dominique Lamar Foster, 	Case No. 3:25-cv-02262
Plaintiff
v. 	ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Putnam County Ohio, et al.,
Defendants
On October 21, 2025, pro se Plaintiff Dominique Lamar Foster filed a civil rights complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Putnam County, Ohio; Judge Keith L. Schierloh; Sheriff Brad
Nelson; CORSA; and “Does 1-10.” (See Doc. No. 1).
Plaintiff also filed a self-created application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc. No.
2). The application in its entirety simply states that “due to financial hardship,” Plaintiff cannot
afford the costs of these proceedings. (Id.). He attached a “Financial Affidavit” to the application in
which Plaintiff states that he is unemployed, has no “steady source of income,” receives support
through “family assistance and minimal resources,” does not own “significant assets, savings, or
property of substantial value,” and cannot pay the filing fee for this action without foregoing food,
shelter, or other essentials. (Doc. No. 2-1). Plaintiff signed both the application and the affidavit as
“Dominique Lamar Foster, Living Man.” (Doc. Nos. 2, 2-1).
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) permits an indigent plaintiff to avoid payment of court filing
fees by filing a sworn application to proceed in forma pauperis. But proceeding in forma
pauperis is a privilege, not a right. See Wilson v. Yaklich, 148 F.3d 596, 603 (6th Cir. 1998).
“Under [§ 1915(a)], the Court must conduct a satisfactory inquiry into the plaintiff’s ability to
pay the filing fee and prosecute the lawsuit.” Dandridge v. Hooman, No. 05-2401-B/P, 2006 WL
Case: 3:25-cv-02262-JJH Doc #: 4 Filed: 12/16/25 1 of 2. PageID #: <pageID>

2
27184, at *1 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 5, 2006). “The decision to grant or deny an application to proceed
in forma pauperis lies within the sound discretion of the district court.” Flippin v. Coburn, 107 F. App’x
520, 521 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing Phipps v. King, 866 F.2d 824, 825 (6th Cir. 1988)).
Here, Plaintiff provided only brief, subjective statements that he is unable to pay the cost of
the proceedings. He has not provided the Court with credible or plausible information regarding his
income, expenses, and other factors bearing upon his ability to pay the filing fee. The Court
therefore is unable to fulfill its obligation to assess Plaintiff’s indigent status, and his motion to
proceed IFP is denied. See Liggins v. Am. Elec. Power Co., No. C2-04-502, 2008 WL 2491749, at *2
(S.D. Ohio June 17, 2008) (denying motion to proceed IFP on appeal where plaintiff failed to
support her motion with sufficient detail to provide the court with adequate information to
determine if she lacks the financial resources to pay the filing fee) (citing Flippin, 107 F. App’x at
521); see also Reynolds v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 30 F. App’x 574 (6th Cir. 2002) (finding that the district
court acted within its discretion in denying plaintiff’s IFP application where plaintiff did not identify
his securities with particularity or offer a credible estimate of their value) (citation omitted).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, (Doc. No. 2), and
this action is dismissed. Plaintiff may move to reopen this case within thirty (30) days of
the date of this Order by paying the full filing fee of $405.00 and filing a Motion to Reopen
contemporaneous with the payment of the full filing fee. The Court will not accept any document
for filing unless the filing fee is first paid in its entirety.
I further certify, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could
not be taken in good faith.
So Ordered.
s/ Jeffrey J. Helmick
United States District Judge
Case: 3:25-cv-02262-JJH Doc #: 4 Filed: 12/16/25 2 of 2. PageID #: <pageID>