Marrero v. Mayorkas

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION TITO MARRERO, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § CAUSE NO. EP-25-CV-52-KC § ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, et al., § § Defendants. § ORDER On this day, the Court considered Plaintiff Tito Marrero’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (“Motion”), ECF No. 4. The Court referred the Motion to United States Magistrate Judge Laura Enriquez, who entered her Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), ECF No. 13, on August 26, 2025. Judge Enriquez recommends that the Court deny the Motion because (1) Marrero has not provided any financial information with which the Court could assess his ability to pay, and (2) Marrero paid the filing fee in at least five civil cases in 2024.

R&R 1–3.

On September 2, the Court received correspondence from Plaintiff, which was sent via email to Clerk’s office personnel. Correspondence, ECF No. 15. Plaintiff states generally that he has “no money for more lawsuits,” but does not provide any concrete financial information.

Id. at 1. He attaches prior correspondence with the Clerk’s office, indicating that he paid the filing fee in a separate lawsuit that he filed last year, concerning the same subject matter as this case. See id. at 1–4. Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court liberally construes this Correspondence as an objection to the R&R. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).

District courts conduct de novo review of those portions of a report and recommendation to which a party has timely objected. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge . . . shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made... .”).

Upon de novo review, the Court agrees with Judge Enriquez’s recommendation to deny the Motion. Plaintiff has simply provided no financial information to corroborate his bare assertion of inability to pay. See generally Mot.; Correspondence. And Court records indicate that, as recently as last year, he was able to pay many filing fees. R&R 2 n.12 (collecting cases).

Finally, the fact that Plaintiff previously paid the fee in a related case, which was dismissed, does not excuse his obligation to pay the fee in this case.

Accordingly, the R&R, ECF No. 13, is ADOPTED and Plaintiff's Motion, ECF No. 4, is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must pay the $405 filing fee by no later than October 2, 2025. Failure to timely pay the filing fee will result in dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute.

SO ORDERED.

SIGNED this 4th day of September, 2025.

NIZED STATES DISTRIG# JUDGE