Cox v. Commissioner Of Department of Human Services
U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
Cox v. Commissioner Of Department of Human Services
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Samuel I. Cox, Case No. 24-cv-1683 (JRT/DLM)
Plaintiff,
v.
Commissioner of Department of Human
Services, Jane Doe/John Doe; Sara Kulas, ORDER
Jane/John Doe—Department of Human
Services Mailroom Supervisor; Jane/John
Doe, Mailroom Employee(s); and Phil
Olson, 1C Unit Director, sued in their
individual and official capacities,
Defendants.
Plaintiff Samuel I. Cox, a client at the Minnesota Sex Offender Treatment Program
(“MSOP”) in Moose Lake, Minnesota, filed a civil complaint asserting that Defendants
violated his constitutional rights by asking him about the source of the money orders he
has been receiving in the mail. (Doc. 1.) Mr. Cox did not pay the filing fee. Instead, he
applied to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc. 2.) Upon initial review of that IFP
application, this Court ordered Mr. Cox to submit a complete and signed IFP application
addressing the concerns outlined in the Court’s Order, warning him that failure to do so
would result in the denial of his IFP application. (Doc. 4.) That deadline has now passed,
and Mr. Cox has not responded. Consistent with the Court’s warning, this Court now denies
Mr. Cox’s IFP application.
“‘The central question’ in determining whether an individual qualifies financially
for IFP status ‘is whether the movant can afford the costs of proceeding without undue
hardship or deprivation of the necessities of life.’” Olson v. Ramsey Cty., No. 15-cv-3131
(DWF/JSM), 2015 WL 5778478, at *4 (D. Minn. July 31, 2015) (quoting Ayers v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Justice,70 F.3d 1268
, 1268 (5th Cir. 1995) (per curiam)), R. & R. adopted,2015 WL 5778478
(D. Minn. Oct. 1, 2014).
As previously noted, Mr. Cox reports in his IFP application that in the last 12 months
he has not received any money from any source. (Doc. 2.) But the core of Mr. Cox’s
complaint is that Defendants have violated his constitutional rights by asking him on May
1, 2024, about the source of money orders he has been receiving in the mail. (Doc. 1.) This
Court cannot find that Mr. Cox has accurately represented that he has not received any
income from any source in the last 12 months when his complaint suggests he has very
recently received money orders from family. See Helland v. St. Mary’s Duluth Clinic
Health System, Case No. 10-cv-31 (RHK/RLE), 2010 WL 502781, at *1 n.1 (D. Minn.
Feb. 5, 2010) (“Federal Courts . . . have consistently considered not only an IFP applicant’s
personal income, but also his or her other financial resources, including the resources that
could be made available from the applicant’s spouse, or other family members.”)
(collecting cases). The Court cannot ignore this inconsistency, and Mr. Cox did not take
advantage of the Court’s offer to resubmit his IFP application to clarify his income.
2
Accordingly, based on the information provided in Mr. Cox’s IFP application and
the other filings on this case’s docket, the Court cannot conclude that Mr. Cox has
accurately disclosed his sources of income when he says that he has not received any
income from any source within the last 12 months. Thus, this Court cannot conclude that
Mr. Cox is truly indigent and does not have the resources to pay the statutory filing fee of
$405.00. Mr. Cox’s IFP application is therefore denied.
Mr. Cox is nevertheless afforded an opportunity to pay the statutory filing fee of
$405.00, and if he chooses to do so, he will be allowed to pursue his claims as a non-IFP
litigant. If Mr. Cox pays the $405 filing fee within 20 days after the date of this Order, the
action will be allowed to proceed. If Mr. Cox fails to pay the full amount of the filing fee
within the time allowed, he will be deemed to have abandoned this action, and this action
will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
ORDER
Based on the above, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings in this case, IT
IS ORDERD that:
1. Plaintiff Samuel I. Cox’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2)
is DENIED; and
2. Mr. Cox must pay the full filing fee of $405 within 20 days after the date of
this Order, and is warned that if he fails to do so, the Court will recommend
that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
DATED: June 20, 2024 s/Douglas L. Micko
DOUGLAS L. MICKO
United States Magistrate Judge
3 Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Samuel I. Cox, Case No. 24-cv-1683 (JRT/DLM)
Plaintiff,
v.
Commissioner of Department of Human
Services, Jane Doe/John Doe; Sara Kulas, ORDER
Jane/John Doe—Department of Human
Services Mailroom Supervisor; Jane/John
Doe, Mailroom Employee(s); and Phil
Olson, 1C Unit Director, sued in their
individual and official capacities,
Defendants.
Plaintiff Samuel I. Cox, a client at the Minnesota Sex Offender Treatment Program
(“MSOP”) in Moose Lake, Minnesota, filed a civil complaint asserting that Defendants
violated his constitutional rights by asking him about the source of the money orders he
has been receiving in the mail. (Doc. 1.) Mr. Cox did not pay the filing fee. Instead, he
applied to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc. 2.) Upon initial review of that IFP
application, this Court ordered Mr. Cox to submit a complete and signed IFP application
addressing the concerns outlined in the Court’s Order, warning him that failure to do so
would result in the denial of his IFP application. (Doc. 4.) That deadline has now passed,
and Mr. Cox has not responded. Consistent with the Court’s warning, this Court now denies
Mr. Cox’s IFP application.
“‘The central question’ in determining whether an individual qualifies financially
for IFP status ‘is whether the movant can afford the costs of proceeding without undue
hardship or deprivation of the necessities of life.’” Olson v. Ramsey Cty., No. 15-cv-3131
(DWF/JSM), 2015 WL 5778478, at *4 (D. Minn. July 31, 2015) (quoting Ayers v. Tex. Dep’t of Crim. Justice,70 F.3d 1268
, 1268 (5th Cir. 1995) (per curiam)), R. & R. adopted,2015 WL 5778478
(D. Minn. Oct. 1, 2014).
As previously noted, Mr. Cox reports in his IFP application that in the last 12 months
he has not received any money from any source. (Doc. 2.) But the core of Mr. Cox’s
complaint is that Defendants have violated his constitutional rights by asking him on May
1, 2024, about the source of money orders he has been receiving in the mail. (Doc. 1.) This
Court cannot find that Mr. Cox has accurately represented that he has not received any
income from any source in the last 12 months when his complaint suggests he has very
recently received money orders from family. See Helland v. St. Mary’s Duluth Clinic
Health System, Case No. 10-cv-31 (RHK/RLE), 2010 WL 502781, at *1 n.1 (D. Minn.
Feb. 5, 2010) (“Federal Courts . . . have consistently considered not only an IFP applicant’s
personal income, but also his or her other financial resources, including the resources that
could be made available from the applicant’s spouse, or other family members.”)
(collecting cases). The Court cannot ignore this inconsistency, and Mr. Cox did not take
advantage of the Court’s offer to resubmit his IFP application to clarify his income.
2
Accordingly, based on the information provided in Mr. Cox’s IFP application and
the other filings on this case’s docket, the Court cannot conclude that Mr. Cox has
accurately disclosed his sources of income when he says that he has not received any
income from any source within the last 12 months. Thus, this Court cannot conclude that
Mr. Cox is truly indigent and does not have the resources to pay the statutory filing fee of
$405.00. Mr. Cox’s IFP application is therefore denied.
Mr. Cox is nevertheless afforded an opportunity to pay the statutory filing fee of
$405.00, and if he chooses to do so, he will be allowed to pursue his claims as a non-IFP
litigant. If Mr. Cox pays the $405 filing fee within 20 days after the date of this Order, the
action will be allowed to proceed. If Mr. Cox fails to pay the full amount of the filing fee
within the time allowed, he will be deemed to have abandoned this action, and this action
will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
ORDER
Based on the above, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings in this case, IT
IS ORDERD that:
1. Plaintiff Samuel I. Cox’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2)
is DENIED; and
2. Mr. Cox must pay the full filing fee of $405 within 20 days after the date of
this Order, and is warned that if he fails to do so, the Court will recommend
that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
DATED: June 20, 2024 s/Douglas L. Micko
DOUGLAS L. MICKO
United States Magistrate Judge
3 Reference
- Status
- Unknown