Peterson v. Dallas County Texas

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
BREALYN LEE PETERSON, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § No. 3:25-cv-1051-E (BT)
§
DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS, §
§
Defendant. §
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Brealyn Lee Peterson seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(IFP) in this pro se civil action. See generally IFP App. (ECF No. 4). For the reasons
stated, the Court should deny Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed IFP and
dismiss her case without prejudice unless she 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 she 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
Case 3:25-cv-01051-E-BT Document 7 Filed 02/26/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID <pageID>

2
would “cause undue financial hardship.” Id. “This entails a review of other
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 received approximately $1,800 each month in the 12 months
before her IFP application from self-employment and gifts, and she expected to
make $2,000 the month following her application. IFP App. at 2. Plaintiff also
holds over $184 in her bank accounts and owns a 2018 Honda Accord. Id. at 2–3.
Based on the information provided, the Court cannot conclude that payment
of the $405.00 filing fee would cause Plaintiff undue financial hardship. Plaintiff
receives an annual income of approximately $21,600—before factoring in
Plaintiff’s expected increase in income. This income places her well above the
federal poverty threshold for a one-person household in Texas. See OFFICE OF THE
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR PLANNING AND EVALUATION, HHS Poverty Guidelines
for 2026, https://aspe.hhs.gov/topics/poverty-economic-mobility/poverty-
guidelines (last visited February 25, 2026).
Additionally, while Plaintiff’s claimed expenses exceed her net income, this
does not indicate that payment of the filing would cause Plaintiff undue hardship.
Case 3:25-cv-01051-E-BT Document 7 Filed 02/26/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID <pageID>

3
First, it appears that at least some of Plaintiff’s expenses are discretionary
and/or excessive. This includes $800 in motor vehicle installment payments, $600
for transportation (specifically, car repairs), and $203.75 for a personal loan. IFP
App. at 4. 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”); LeBlanc v. Rodger’s L. Firm PLLC, 2025
WL 2263723, at *1 (N.D. Tex. July 1, 2025) (Rutherford, J.), rec. adopted, 2025
WL 2256718 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2025) (treating expenses for motor vehicle
installment payments as discretionary); Hobbs v. Stanley, 2022 WL 1510936, at *1
(W.D. Tex. Apr. 14, 2022) (treating expenses for transportation as discretionary).
Second, Plaintiff states that she is unable to pay the filing fee because she is
behind on car payments, she is homeless, and she is having difficulty finding
employment IFP App. at 5. While the Court understands that Plaintiff’s
circumstances can be burdensome, the Court finds that Plaintiff has adequate
assets to pay the $405.00 filing fee and other costs of this suit.
Recommendation
The Court should DENY Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 4) and dismiss her case without prejudice unless she pays the
$405.00 filing fee within 30 days of an order accepting this recommendation.
Case 3:25-cv-01051-E-BT Document 7 Filed 02/26/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID <pageID>

4
SO RECOMMENDED.
February 26, 2026.
____________________________
REBECCA RUTHERFORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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-01051-E-BT Document 7 Filed 02/26/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID <pageID>