Lorthe v. Carron et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
YVES H. LORTHE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CARRON, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil No. 3:26-cv-1389-OAW
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
The plaintiff, Yves H. Lorthe, is an inmate in the custody of the Connecticut
Department of Correction. He has filed a civil rights for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
ECF No. 1. With his complaint, Mr. Lorthe filed an application to proceed in forma
pauperis—in other words, he asks for permission to begin a civil lawsuit without pre-
paying $405 in filing and administrative fees. ECF No. 2. For the following reasons, his
application is denied.
Litigants may commence a civil action without pre-paying the filing fee by
submitting an affidavit showing they are “unable to pay.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). But a
court must dismiss the case at any time if it “determines [] that the allegation of poverty is
untrue . . . .” Id. § 1915(e)(2)(A). This provision prevents abuse of the judicial system by
“weed[ing] out the litigants who falsely understate their net worth in order to obtain in
forma pauperis status when they are not entitled to that status . . . .” Vann v.
Commissioner of N.Y. City Dep’t of Corr., 496 F. App’x 113, 115 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting
Attwood v. Singletary, 105 F.3d 610, 613 (11th Cir.1997)) (alteration in original).
Case 3:26-cv-01389-OAW Document 12 Filed 10/09/26 Page 1 of 4

2
An in forma pauperis affidavit sufficiently demonstrates an inability to pay when it
shows that the applicant pay court fees and still be able to provide life’s necessities for
himself and his dependents. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339
(1948). While the applicant does not need to prove “absolute destitution,” Potnick v. E.
State Hosp., 701 F.2d 243, 244 (2d Cir. 1983), he does need to show that pre-paying the
fee “would constitute a serious hardship.” Fiebelkorn v. U.S., 77 Fed. Cl. 59, 62 (2007).
When applying this standard in the prison context, courts take note of the fact that
many of a prisoner’s necessities are provided to him by the government. As the Second
Circuit explained, “what constitutes the ‘necessities of life’ that must be purchased is
obviously different for prisoners, most of whose necessities are paid for by the jurisdiction
that incarcerates them.” In re Epps, 888 F.2d 964, 967 (2d Cir. 1989). Accordingly,
inmates “with modest cash reserves are not paupers within the intendment of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a) for the purpose of filing fees, initial service of process costs and the like.”
Temple v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F. Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984); see also Cruz v. Dorzco, No.
3:20-cv-01435, slip op. (D. Conn. Apr. 27, 2021) (denying an in forma pauperis application
from an inmate with $1,461.00); Hill v. Cook, No. 3:21-cv-00239, slip op. at 2 (D. Conn.
Mar. 12, 2021) (denying in forma pauperis status to a prisoner with a spendable balance
of $1,000.61).
In his application to proceed in forma pauperis, Mr. Lorthe states that he receives
monthly wages of $28 from his job as a Tierman for the prison; that he provides no support
to any family members or other individuals; and that he spends less than $25 each month
for certain necessities of life that are not provided by the Department of Correction. ECF
No. 2 at 2-3. Mr. Lorthe indicates that he retains only 21 cents in cash or checking and
Case 3:26-cv-01389-OAW Document 12 Filed 10/09/26 Page 2 of 4

3
saving accounts. Id. at 3. But this claim of poverty is belied by the copy of his inmate
trust account statement he submitted in support of his application. ECF No. 3. It reveals
that he had a spendable balance of only $114.21 on August 25, 2026, but had regular
outside deposits of $100 or $50 amounting to more than $1,800 during the six-month
period preceding the filing of this action.
The court finds that these misrepresentations materially affect Mr. Lorthe’s
apparent ability to pay. “All litigants must make decisions about how to spend their money
when they are contemplating litigation.” Brown v. Ruiz, No. 3:20-cv-1202 (KAD), 2020
WL 6395480, at *1 (D. Conn. Nov. 2, 2020) (slip op.). But a court’s consideration of a
prisoner's affidavit of indigence may consider whether a prisoner who had insufficient
funds at the time of filing has recently drawn down his account and if so, for what purpose.
Hinton v. Pearson, No. 3:21-CV-863 (MPS), 2021 WL 3036921, at *2 (D. Conn. July 19,
2021). Here, the court discerns from the trust account statement that anytime Mr. Lorthe
received an outside deposit of either $100 or $50 during the relevant six month period,
he spent money at the commissary. ECF No. 3. The allegations of Mr. Lorthe’s complaint
show that he was pursuing his claims at least eight months prior to filing his complaint
insofar as he complained to Department of Correction staff as early as December 2021,
ECF No. 1 ¶ 6, and that he filed a Level 1 Grievance to exhaust his prison administrative
remedies on December 5, 2025, id. ¶ 23.1 Mr. Lorthe’s trust fund account shows that he
could have paid the court fee from the regular deposits made to his account from February
2 to August 25, 2026, but instead, he spent that money at the commissary.
1 The Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, which governs actions brought by prison inmates, requires a
prisoner to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing a federal lawsuit regarding prison conditions.
42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a).
Case 3:26-cv-01389-OAW Document 12 Filed 10/09/26 Page 3 of 4

4
The court finds that Mr. Lorthe’s misrepresentations warrant denial of the motion
to proceed in forma pauperis, and that the misrepresentations show he did have the ability
to pay the court fees should, by statute, warrant dismissal of the entire action. However,
acknowledging the possibility of an honest mistake, the court will not dismiss the case for
that reason.
The court does find, though, that the complaint warrants dismissal for failure to
state a claim. Broadly stated, Plaintiff brings suit because the restroom in the prison
weight room has been out of order and he must return to his unit if he wishes to use the
facilities during his workout, after which he is not permitted to return to the weight room.
But it is not clear which federal right is violated by this situation. The strongest claim the
court can construe from these allegations is an Eighth Amendment violation for
unconstitutional conditions of confinement, but the court cannot conclude that the facts
alleged support such a claim. Plaintiff does not allege that he may not exercise, or that
he ever is prohibited from reaching a restroom at all. While the situation certainly is
frustrating, it does not rise to constitutional proportions.
Accordingly, the case is dismissed, but without prejudice. Plaintiff may file an
amended complaint and pay the filing fee on or before December 31, 2026. Failure to
do so will result in the dismissal converting to one with prejudice, without further order of
the court, and the case being closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut, this 9th day of October, 2026.
_________/s/___________________
OMAR A. WILLIAMS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-01389-OAW Document 12 Filed 10/09/26 Page 4 of 4