Guerrero-Lozano v. R.S. Hanline & Company, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Pro se Plaintiff Alma Leticia Guerrero-Lozano filed this action against R.S. Hanline
& Company. 	She did not pay the $ 405.00 filing fee and instead filed an Application to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc No. 2). 	In that form, she indicates that she has
approximately $ 14,300.00 in payments from the Bureau of Workers Compensation and her
spouse has $ 6,600.00 also in Worker’s Compensation payments. She also states that she has
$ 6,000.00 in a certificate of deposit but cannot take money out of the account at this time
without incurring a penalty. 	She indicates that she is still on medical leave and while that
money is guaranteed, she uses it to pay her bills and other expenses for her daughter. She
prefers not to use it for payment of the filing fee.
In federal court, 28 U.S.C. §1915 governs In Forma Pauperis Applications. Under
this statute, a Federal Court may authorize the commencement of any action without
prepayment of filing fees if the litigant submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all
ALMA LETICIA GUERRERO-LOZANO,
Plaintiff,
v.
R.S. HANLINE & COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 1:26-cv-02666
JUDGE DAN AARON POLSTER
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER
Case: 1:26-cv-02666-DAP Doc #: 3 Filed: 10/14/26 1 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

2
assets, income, debts and expenses that demonstrates that the person is unable to pay the filing
fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Pauper status does not require absolute destitution, Foster v.
Cuyahoga Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 21 Fed. Appx. 239, 240 (6th Cir. 2001). Rather
the determination is whether the litigant can pay the filing fee without undue hardship. Id.
The determination of what constitutes an “undue hardship” is left to the discretion of
the Court. It requires more than a showing of some hardship. It is not available for a litigant
who seeks waiver of fee simply because he or she would have to make adjustments in the
monthly budget to pay the fee. Behmlander v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 2012 WL 5457466 at *
2 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 16, 2012). 	A person is not a pauper just because he must “weigh the
financial constraints posed by pursuing [his] Complaint against the merits of [his] claims.”
Id. On the other end of the spectrum, the Supreme Court has determined that litigants are not
required “to contribute to payment of costs, the last dollar they have or can get, and thus make
themselves and their dependents wholly destitute” in order to proceed as a pauper under 28
U.S.C. § 1915. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948). Other
Federal Court have determined that pauper status is available only to litigants who
demonstrate in their Affidavit that the one-time payment of the Court’s filing fee will render
the Plaintiff unable to provide for herself and her dependents. Maddox v. Foley, No. 3:23-
CV-48, 2023 WL 3852943, at *2 (S.D. Ohio May 10, 2023). 	In forma pauperis status is
reserved for those Plaintiffs who would be required to forgo “food, shelter, clothing, or some
other necessity” if they were required to pay a judicial filing fee. Id. at *1 (S.D. Ohio June
12, 2024); Bush v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. and Corr., No. 2:05-cv-0667, 2007 WL 4365381, at
*1 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 10, 2007). 	The Court takes very seriously a request to proceed with
litigation at taxpayer expense. It is within the Court’s discretion to allow a litigant to proceed
Case: 1:26-cv-02666-DAP Doc #: 3 Filed: 10/14/26 2 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

3
in forma pauperis. Id. Proceeding in forma pauperis is a privilege, and not a right. Wilson
v. Yaklich, 148 F.3d 596, 603 (6th Cir. 1998).
In this case, Plaintiff has resources from which she could pay the filing fee. This is
not a situation where she would have to choose between proceeding with her case in court or
providing food, shelter or clothing for herself or her family. Rather, it is a case in which she
must weigh the financial impact of paying the filing fee against the strength of the merits of
her case. Her Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc No. 2) is denied.
Furthermore, Plaintiff’s Complaint is so deficient that it does not meet the minimum
pleading requirements of Federal Civil Procedure Rule 8. 	Federal Civil Procedure Rule 8
requires a Plaintiff to submit a short, plain and concise statement of his or her claims and
relief. 	To meet the minimum notice pleading requirements of Rule 8, the Complaint must
give the Defendants fair notice of what the Plaintiff’s legal claims are and the factual grounds
upon which they rest. Bassett v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 528 F.3d 426, 437 (6th
Cir. 2008). Here, Plaintiff utilized a court form for her Complaint but did complete it. She
did not provide any factual allegations or give any indication of what causes of action she
might be attempting to assert. Instead, she attached 42 pages of photocopies of documents,
without any explanation of their relevance to her or any claims she might be attempting to
raise. Many of these documents are in Spanish. Others concern individuals other than the
Plaintiff.
The Court is not obligated to search through voluminous exhibits attached to a
Complaint to attempt to piece together a factual basis for the Complaint and identify a claim
under which Plaintiff can potentially recover. This is not the Court’s role. 	It is Plaintiff’s
responsibility to provide the Court and the Defendant with a sufficient narrative of the facts
Case: 1:26-cv-02666-DAP Doc #: 3 Filed: 10/14/26 3 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

4
of her case and an indication of the causes of action that she intends to assert against the
Defendants. She must do this within the body of the Complaint. She cannot attach numerous
documents as exhibits and expect the Court to construct the Complaint for her. The Court’s
role is to adjudicate disputes, not assist in asserting them.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is
denied and this action is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff may reopen this case within
thirty (30) days of the date of this Order by doing all three of the following things. First she
must pay the full filing fee of $ 405.00. Second, she must file a Motion to Reopen the case.
Third, she must submit a proposed Amended Complaint which contains factual allegations
and legal claims within the body of the pleading. The Complaint cannot exceed thirty (30)
pages. If Plaintiff fails to complete any of these three tasks, this case will not be reopened
and will remain dismissed without prejudice. 	The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 14, 2026 	s/Dan Aaron Polster
United States District Judge
Case: 1:26-cv-02666-DAP Doc #: 3 Filed: 10/14/26 4 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>