Frilando v. Barr

United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia

Frilando v. Barr

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA SAVANNAH DIVISION

JOHN ANTHONY FRILANDO, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CV422-207 ) KAREN DOVE BARR, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Pro se prisoner Plaintiff John Anthony Frilando filed a Complaint alleging that he was unable to participate in a court hearing. Doc. 1. He requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Doc. 2. Because more financial information is needed, Plaintiff is DIRECTED to supplement his IFP no later than December 27, 2022. Plaintiff’s justification for his IFP request is a conclusory statement that “because of [his] poverty [he] is unable to pay” the filing fee. Doc. 2 at 2. Absent any specific information regarding Plaintiff’s finances, it is impossible for the Court to determine whether he is indigent. Wary of indigency claims where information appears to have been omitted, and cognizant of how easily one may consume a public resource with no financial skin in the game,1 this Court demands supplemental information from dubious IFP movants. See, e.g., Kareem v. Home Source

Rental,

986 F. Supp. 2d 1345

(S.D. Ga. 2013); Robbins v. Universal Music Grp.,

2013 WL 1146865

at *1 (S.D. Ga. Mar.19, 2013).2 To that end, the

Court tolerates no lies. Ross v. Fogam,

2011 WL 2516221

at *1 (S.D. Ga. June 23, 2011) (“Ross, a convicted criminal, chose to burden this Court with falsehoods, not honesty. The Court thus rejects Ross's show cause

explanation, as it is clear that he purposefully chose to disguise his filing

1 “[A] litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public . . . lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.” Neitzke v. Williams,

490 U.S. 319, 324

(1989). Courts thus deploy appropriate scrutiny. See Hobby v. Beneficial Mortg. Co. of Va.,

2005 WL 5409003

at *7 (E.D. Va. June 3, 2005) (debtor denied IFP status where, although she was unable to find employment as a substitute teacher, she had not shown she is unable to work and earn income in other ways); In re Fromal,

151 B.R. 733, 735

(E.D. Va. 1993) (denying IFP application where debtor was licensed attorney and accountant and she offered no reason why she cannot find employment), cited in In re Zow,

2013 WL 1405533

at *2 (Bkrtcy. S.D. Ga. Mar. 4, 2013) (denying IFP to “highly educated” bankruptcy debtor who, inter alia, had “not shown he is physically unable to work or earn income in other ways.”); Nixon v. United Parcel Service,

2013 WL 1364107

at *1- 2 (M.D. Ga. Apr. 3, 2013) (court examined income and expenses on long-form IFP affidavit and determined that plaintiff in fact had the ability to pay the court’s filing fee); Swain v. Colorado Tech. Univ.,

2014 WL 3012730

at *1 n. 1 (S.D. Ga. May 14, 2014).

2 See also Lister v. Dep’t of Treasury,

408 F.3d 1309, 1313

(10th Cir. 2005) (court did not abuse its discretion by denying status to Social Security benefits claimant seeking judicial review of Commissioner's benefits denial; claimant, after having been specifically instructed on how to establish IFP status, failed to fill out proper forms or otherwise provide court with requisite financial information); Mullins v. Barnhart,

2010 WL 1643581

at *1 (D. Kan. Mar, 30, 2010) (denying, after scrutinizing IFP affidavit’s financial data, leave to proceed IFP on financial ability grounds). history and financial status.”); Johnson v. Chisolm,

2011 WL 3319872

at *1 n. 3 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 1, 2011) (“This Court does not hesitate to invoke

dismissal and other sanctions against inmates who lie to or otherwise deceive this Court.”); see also Moss v. Premiere Credit of North America,

LLC,

2013 WL 842515

(11th Cir. Mar. 6, 2013) (“Moss’s [IFP on appeal] motion is denied because her allegation of poverty appears to be untrue in light of her financial affidavit and filings in the district court.”).3

Plaintiff’s application for IFP status omits material details. He, therefore, must clarify why he lacks the ability to meet his financial obligations for this case.4

3 Furthermore, liars may be prosecuted. See United States v. Dickerson, CR608-36, doc. 1 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 11, 2008) (§ 2255 movant indicted for perjury for knowingly lying in his motion seeking collateral relief from his conviction); id., doc. 47 (guilty verdict), cited in Colony Ins. Co. v. 9400 Abercorn, LLC,

866 F. Supp. 2d 1376

, 1378 n. 2 (S.D. Ga. 2012) (collecting sanction cases).

4 Several important points must be underscored here:

First, proceeding [IFP] in a civil case is a privilege or favor granted by the government. Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council,

506 U.S. 194, 198

,

113 S.Ct. 716

,

121 L.Ed.2d 656

(1993). Second, the statute reads that the court “may authorize the commencement” of an action.

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(a)(1). The grant, denial, or other decision concerning an [IFP] application requires the court to exercise discretion. Denton v. Hernandez,

504 U.S. 25, 31

,

112 S.Ct. 1728

,

118 L.Ed.2d 340

(1992); see also Lee v. McDonald's Corp.,

231 F.3d 456, 458

(8th Cir. 2000) (explaining the purpose of

28 U.S.C. § 1915

and stating the decision of whether to grant or deny in [IFP] s status under

28 U.S.C. § 1915

is discretionary). Providing this information will better illuminate Plaintiffs true financial condition. In that regard, he must again declare the facts he pleads to be true, and sign his name to that declaration—under penalty of perjury. If he does not use a preprinted IFP form to respond (hence, if he uses a blank sheet of paper), he must insert this above his signature: “T declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date).”

28 U.S.C. § 1746

(1). The Clerk is DIRECTED to serve with this Order a blank IFP form for Plaintiffs convenience. Failure to comply with this directive by December 27, 2022 will result in a recommendation of dismissal on IFP-deficiency grounds alone. Kareem v. Home Source Rental,

2014 WL 24347

at *1 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 2, 2014). SO ORDERED, this 12th day of December, 2022. niger. (lag CHRISTOPHER L. RAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

Lafontaine v. Tobin,

2013 WL 4048571

at *1 (N.D. Iowa Aug. 9, 2013) (emphasis added); see also Marceaux v. Democratic Party,

79 F. App’x 185, 186

(6th Cir. 2003) (no abuse of discretion when court determined plaintiff could afford to pay the filing fee without undue hardship because he has no room and board expenses, owns a car, and spends the $250.00 earned each month selling plasma on completely discretionary items).

Reference

Status
Unknown