Woods v. Greer County Sheriff Department et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ARTHUR MACK WOODS, JR., )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-26-19-G
)
GREER COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT )
et al., )
)
Defendants. )
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
In conformance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915, Plaintiff filed an Application to Proceed in
District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Motion) (ECF No. 6). United States District
Judge Charles B. Goodwin referred the matter to the undersigned magistrate judge for
initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
See ECF No. 3.
On January 28, 2026, the Motion was reviewed by the undersigned and found to
be deficient. Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended application providing detailed
answers for every question. In addition, because Plaintiff listed no living expenses at all,
Plaintiff was required to explain what cost of living expenses are met by other persons, if
any (e.g., transportation, housing, utilities, food and personal care expenses).
See ECF
No. 7.
On March 6, 2026, Plaintiff filed a second Application to Proceed in District Court
without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Motion) (ECF No. 8). For the following reasons, the
Case 5:26-cv-00019-G Document 9 Filed 03/30/26 Page 1 of 4

undersigned recommends the Court deny Plaintiff’s request to Proceed in District Court
without Prepaying Fees or Costs.
I. ANALYSIS
The filing fee for a civil case in this Court is $405.00.1 Courts have discretion in
deciding whether to grant a civil litigant permission to proceed without prepayment of
fees or costs—that is, in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a
); Lister v. Dep’t of
Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005). Proceeding IFP “in a civil case is a
privilege, not a right—fundamental or otherwise.”
White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1233
(10th Cir. 1998) (citation modified). To succeed on an application to proceed IFP, the
movant must show “a financial inability to pay the required filing fees.”
Lister, 408 F.3d
at 1312.
In his first Motion Plaintiff declared he was self-employed earning $120.00 monthly
“cutting grass,” but in his second Motion he indicates he is not employed and has no
income. Plaintiff also initially indicated “YES’ to questions #2(a) Business, profession, or
other self-employment and #2(b) Rent payments, interest, or dividends and reports, but
failed to describe each source of money or state the amount received, or what he
expected to receive in the future, but in his second Motion he indicates “NO” to all #2
questions.
Compare ECF Nos. 6 and 8; questions #1 and #2.
1 The total filing fee includes a base fee of $350.00 plus an administrative fee of $55.00.
See 28 U.S.C. §
1914(a);
Judicial Conf. Sched. of Fees, Dist. Ct. Misc. Fee Sched. ¶ 14.
Case 5:26-cv-00019-G Document 9 Filed 03/30/26 Page 2 of 4

Plaintiff’s first Motion indicated no other income and “80.00” in cash or checking
and savings account but when answering to the same question in his second Motion
Plaintiff reports $300.00 in cash or checking and savings account.
Compare ECF Nos. 6
and 8; question #3.
Also in his first Motion Plaintiff reported “NO” to questions #4, #5 and #6.
Question #7 was answered by a line only. Now in his second Motion Plaintiff lists a “Tahoe
2006 Truck” in question #4 and a trailer home in Granite, Oklahoma in question #5.
Compare ECF Nos. 6 and 8; questions #4, #5, #6 and #7. Plaintiff has provided no values
and no recurring payments. Also though the undersigned presumes Plaintiff has regular
living expenses, such as housing, food, gas, and perhaps internet or a cell phone bill,
Plaintiff’s Applications list none. Plaintiff provides
no information regarding any regular
monthly expenses at all. Plaintiff’s Application remains incomplete in a myriad of ways.
An incomplete application to proceed IFP is often insufficient to establish that IFP
status should be granted.
See id. at 1313 (“We conclude that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying IFP status after [plaintiff], having been specifically
instructed on how to establish indigent status, failed to fill out the proper forms or to
otherwise provide the district court with the requisite information.”).
The Plaintiff has failed to properly complete the Application and has not provided
the Court with the required information. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s application is insufficient
to grant him IFP status.
Case 5:26-cv-00019-G Document 9 Filed 03/30/26 Page 3 of 4

II. RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that the Court DENY
Plaintiff’s Applications to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs
(Motions) (ECF Nos. 6 and 8) and that he be ordered to prepay the full $405.00 filing
fee for this action to proceed.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Lister v. Department of the
Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005) (magistrate judge should issue a report
and recommendation when denying motion to proceed in forma pauperis).
III. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT.
Plaintiff is advised that he may file an objection to this Report and
Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court by April 16, 2026. Plaintiff is further
advised that failure to timely object to this Report and Recommendation waives the right
to appellate review of both factual and legal issues contained herein.
Casanova v. Ulibarri,
595 F.3d 1120, 1123 (10th Cir. 2010).
This report and recommendation terminates the referral to the undersigned
magistrate judge in the captioned matter.
ENTERED on March 30, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00019-G Document 9 Filed 03/30/26 Page 4 of 4