Huluf v. Noem

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LAREDO DIVISION
GEBREMEDHIN EFREM HULUF §
§
§
§
§
VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:26-CV-196
JUDGE STEVENS CHUA et al.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court is Petitioner Gebremedhin Efrem Huluf’s letter, requesting
permission to proceed in forma pauperis, (Dkt. No. 2), and Application to Proceed in
forma pauperis, (Dkt. No. 10).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a claimant wishing to proceed in forma pauperis
must submit “an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [claimant]
possesses.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). The decision whether to grant an application to
proceed in forma pauperis falls within the sound discretion of the Court. See Prows
v. Kastner, 842 F.2d 138, 140 (5th Cir. 1988); see 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(1). When a court
determines whether to grant in forma pauperis status, it should not consider the
substance of the complaint. See Eason v. Holt, 73 F.3d 600, 602 n.10 (5th Cir. 1996).
Rather, a court should examine the applicant’s financial records and determine
whether the applicant would suffer “undue financial hardship” if they were required
to pay the filing fee. Prows, 842 F.2d at 140.
On February 9, 2026, Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the delayed execution of his order of removal.
(Dkt. No. 1 at 4). Petitioner also requested to proceed in forma pauperis and avoid
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
March 03, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 5:26-cv-00196 Document 12 Filed 03/03/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
the $5 filing fee as he is in detention and “do[es] not have access to money to cover
this fee.” (Dkt. No. 2 at 1). On February 17, 2026, Petitioner was ordered to
supplement his request to proceed in forma pauperis by March 6, 2026, as the Court
was unable to determine whether the filing fee would cause undue financial hardship
as Petitioner did not include sufficient information regarding his financial situation.
(Dkt. No. 7 at 2). To assist with supplementing his request, the Court also provided
Petitioner with the Southern District of Texas’ in forma pauperis form (“IFP
application”) to complete and return. (Id. at 3–4).
On March 2, 2026, Petitioner returned an incomplete IFP application. (See
Dkt. No. 10). A review of the docket shows Petitioner has paid the $5 filing fee.
Accordingly, the Undersigned RECOMMENDS that Petitioner’s letter,
requesting permission to proceed in forma pauperis, (Dkt. No. 2), and Application to
Proceed in forma pauperis, (Dkt. No. 10), be DENIED as moot.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Report and
Recommendation via certified mail to Pro Se Petitioner at the address on file.
NOTICE TO PARTIES
Within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy of the Report
and Recommendation, a party may file with the Clerk and serve on the United States
Magistrate Judge and all parties, written objections, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b),
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), General Order No. 2002-13, United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas.
A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions,
Case 5:26-cv-00196 Document 12 Filed 03/03/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
and recommendation in a magistrate judge's report and recommendation within
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS after being served with a copy shall bar that party, except
upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed
factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District Court. Douglass v.
United Servs. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
SIGNED on this 3rd day of March, 2026.
Christopher dos Santos
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 5:26-cv-00196 Document 12 Filed 03/03/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3