Jones v. Santoyo et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
MICHAEL DARNELL JONES, 	§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	No. 3:25-CV-3247-G-BW
§
GUILLERMO SANTOYO, JR, et al., 	§
Defendants. 	§ 	Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge1
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Before the Court is the Application to Proceed in District Court Without
Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form), received from Michael Darnell Jones on
November 25, 2025. (Dkt. No. 5.) Based on the relevant filings and applicable law,
the Court should DENY the application and dismiss this case without prejudice
unless Jones pays the $405 filing fee by January 2, 2026, or by some other deadline
established by the Court.
I. LEGAL STANDARDS AND ANALYSIS
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), a federal district court may authorize a person
to bring a civil action in forma pauperis (“IFP”) when he submits an affidavit
establishing his financial inability to pay or give security for applicable court fees
“without suffering undue financial hardship.” Prows v. Kastner, 842 F.2d 138, 140
(5th Cir. 1988). To determine whether the payment of fees would cause undue
financial hardship, the Court must examine the applicant’s financial condition. See
1 By Special Order No. 3-251, this pro se case has been automatically referred for full
case management.
Case 3:25-cv-03247-G-BW Document 9 Filed 12/02/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID <pageID>

2
id. “This entails a review of other demands on individual plaintiffs’ financial
resources, including whether the expenses are discretionary or mandatory.” Id. In
addition to requiring an applicant to complete a financial affidavit in support of his
request to proceed IFP, the Court may also “look to where the litigant’s reported
income is in relation to applicable poverty guidelines.” Moates v. Biden, No. 6:22-CV-
00626-ADA-JCM, 2022 WL 3566451, at *1 (W.D. Tex. June 29, 2022).
Here, Jones’s IFP application indicates that his average monthly income
during the past 12 months was $5,181.30 and that he does not expect any major
changes. (See Dkt. No. 5 at 1-2, 5.) He reports no dependents, $300 in bank
accounts, a home valued at $400,000, and two cars valued at $300. (See id. at 2-3.)
He reports monthly expenses of $1,272.74 for rent or a mortgage, $2,400 for utilities,
$2,300 for home maintenance, $800 for food, $1,100 for clothing and laundry, $800
for transportation, $4,862 for homeowner’s, life, and car insurance, and a total of
$6,650 for installment payments. (See id. at 4.)
Based on the information provided, the Court should find that Jones has failed
to show that payment of the $405 filing fee would cause him undue financial
hardship. For the 12 months preceding the filing of his IFP application, Jones’s self-
reported monthly household income was $5,181.30, which nets a yearly household
income of $62,175.60. (See id. at 1-2.) This amount is well above the federal poverty
guideline for a household of one. See Annual Update of the HHS Poverty
Guidelines, 89 Fed. Reg. 2961 (Jan. 17, 2024) (setting an annual income of $15,060
Case 3:25-cv-03247-G-BW Document 9 Filed 12/02/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID <pageID>

3
as the poverty threshold for a household of one in the 48 contiguous states and the
District of Columbia).
Additionally, although Jones’s listed monthly expenses exceed his reported
income, almost all of his reported monthly expenses appear, without explanation, to
be discretionary or excessive. (See Dkt. No. 5 at 4 (listing monthly expenses of
$2,400 for utilities, $2,300 for home maintenance, $800 for food, $1,100 for clothing
and laundry, $800 for transportation, a total of $4,862 for insurance, and a total of
$6,650 for unspecified installment payments)); see, e.g., Dobbins v. Kroger Co., No.
3:08-CV-1206-N, 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”). Moreover, “[c]ourts have denied IFP
applications even where the plaintiffs’ expenses exceed their income because the
plaintiffs had other assets.” Lansford v. Laredo College, No. 5:23-CV-00045, 2023 WL
4669685, at *2 (S.D. Tex. June 28, 2023), rec. adopted, 2023 WL 4670303 (S.D. Tex.
Jul. 20, 2023). As discussed, Jones reports assets totaling over $400,000 in value.
(See id. at 3.) Accordingly, the Court should deny Jones’s IFP application.
II. RECOMMENDATION
The Court should DENY the Application to Proceed in District Court
Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form), received on November 25, 2025
(Dkt. No. 5), and dismiss this case without prejudice unless Jones pays the $405.00
Case 3:25-cv-03247-G-BW Document 9 Filed 12/02/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID <pageID>

4
filing and administrative fees by January 2, 2026, or by some other deadline
established by the Court.
SO RECOMMENDED on December 2, 2025.
____________________________________
BRIAN McKAY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
A copy of this report and recommendation will 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 finding or recommendation to which objection is
made, state the basis for the objection, and indicate 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-03247-G-BW Document 9 Filed 12/02/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID <pageID>