Sanders et al v. Commissioner, Texas Department of Family and Protective Services et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
JASON LAMONTE SANDERS and 	§
JOSLYN LASHAE HERNDON 	§
SANDERS, 	§
Plaintiffs, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	No. 3:26-CV-96-X-BW
§
COMMISSIONER, TEXAS 	§
DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY AND 	§
PROTECTIVE SERVICES, et al., 	§
Defendants. 	§ 	Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge1
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiffs Joslyn Lashae Herndon Sander (“Joslyn”) and Jason Lamonte
Sanders (“Jason”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this pro se civil rights lawsuit
against the Texas Department of Family and Protective Service and certain of its
employees in relation to a child custody matter. (See generally Dkt. No. 3.) Both
Joslyn and Jason have signed the complaint. (See Dkt. No. 3 at ECF p. 6.) But only
Joslyn has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (See Dkt.
No. 5.)
Based on the relevant filings and applicable law, the Court should DENY the
application and dismiss this case without prejudice unless Plaintiffs pay the $405.00
1 By Special Order No. 3-251, this pro se case has been referred for full case
management. (See Dkt. No. 1.)
Case 3:26-cv-00096-X-BW Document 12 Filed 01/30/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID <pageID>

2
filing and administrative fees by February 10, 2026, or by some other deadline
established by the Court.
I. LEGAL STANDARD 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 she submits an affidavit
establishing her 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
id. As noted above, only Joslyn submitted an application and financial affidavit.
(See Dkt. No. 5.)
On January 14, 2026, the Court issued an Order and Notice of Deficiency
directing Jason to submit a fully completed and signed Application to Proceed in
District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form) by January 27, 2026.
(Dkt. No. 8.) 	The Order stated: “If Jason does not comply, denial of the application
to proceed in forma pauperis will be recommended, and this action may be dismissed
without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 41(b).” (See
id. at 1.) On January 27, 2026, Jason submitted a response declining to proceed in
forma pauperis. (See Dkt. No. 10.) Joslyn, however, may not proceed in forma
pauperis on her own.
Case 3:26-cv-00096-X-BW Document 12 Filed 01/30/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID <pageID>

3
Because there are two Plaintiffs in this action, the Court must have
information establishing that both Plaintiffs, individually or collectively, cannot pay
the filing fee and are entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. See Digital Payments LLC
v. Dep’t of Banking & Consumer Fin., No. 2:25-CV-3-KS-MTP, 2025 WL 597048, at *1
(S.D. Miss. Jan. 16, 2025), adopted, 2025 WL 595172 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 24, 2025); see
also Shepard v. Ser Texas LLC, No. 4:14-CV-986-Y-BJ, 2014 WL 12597737, at *1
(N.D. Tex. Dec. 10, 2014); Thomas v. LPP Mortg. LTD, 2012 WL 6619723, at *1
(N.D. Tex. Nov. 27, 2012); Berrocal v. Bexar Cnty., Texas, No. SA-25-CV-1192-JKP
(HJB), 2025 WL 2985272, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2025), adopted, 2025 WL
2982611 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 22, 2025). Accordingly, IFP status should be denied.
II. RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that:
1. 	Plaintiff Joslyn Lashae Herndon Sander’s motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (Dkt. No. 5) be DENIED;
2. 	Plaintiffs must pay the $405.00 filing and administrative fees by February
10, 2026, or by some other deadline established by the Court; and
3. 	Should Plaintiffs fail to timely pay all of the costs associated with the filing
of this lawsuit, this matter be dismissed without prejudice.
The undersigned further RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s emergency motion
to expedite consideration of jurisdiction (Dkt. No. 9) be DENIED. The Court will
take up the issue of jurisdiction in due time once the filing fee is paid.
Case 3:26-cv-00096-X-BW Document 12 Filed 01/30/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID <pageID>

4
SO RECOMMENDED on January 30, 2026.
____________________________________
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); F ED . R. C. 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 3:26-cv-00096-X-BW Document 12 Filed 01/30/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID <pageID>