United States District Court, D. Connecticut
RULING AND ORDER
R. Underhill United States District Judge.
plaintiff, Darnell Walker, is an inmate currently
incarcerated at the MacDougall-Walker Correctional
Institution in Suffield, Connecticut. On September 12, 2016,
I vacated a prior order granting Walker's application for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis because he had
included inaccurate statements in the application pertaining
to his income during the twelvemonth period prior to filing
this action. See Order, Doc. No. 7 (vacating Order,
Doc. No. 6). Specifically, I noted that the ledger statement
from Walker's prisoner account for the period of February
10, 2016 to August 10, 2016 reflected deposits to the account
of $50.00 or more at least once a month beginning on March
24, 2016. See Id. at 2 (discussing Tr. Account
Statement, Doc. No. 2-1). In addition, on January 13, 2016,
Walker reached an agreement with the defendants in four cases
filed in this court to settle those cases for a sum of $2,
800.00. See Settlement Agreement, Walker v.
Quiros, Case No. 3:11-cv-00082, Doc. No. 124. Walker
neglected to list any of the deposits to his account or to
mention the settlement agreement or the amount due to him
pursuant to that agreement in his application for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis.
Walker had not demonstrated that he was unable to pay the
$400.00 filing fee, in my September 12, 2016 order, I denied
the application for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and directed Walker to pay the filing fee. In
response, Walker has filed a declaration, a motion for
judgment on the pleadings and a new motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis.
well settled that the decision to proceed in forma
pauperis in civil cases is committed to the sound
discretion of the district court. See Rowland v. Cal.
Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council,
506 U.S. 194, 217-18 (1993); Fridman v. City of New
York, 195 F.Supp.2d 534, 536 (S.D.N.Y. 2002). A litigant
need not be absolutely destitute in order to qualify for
in forma pauperis status. The court considers
whether the burden of paying the fees for filing and service
would hamper the litigant's ability to obtain the
necessities of life or force him to abandon the action.
See Adkins v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 335
U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948); Potnick v. E. State Hosp.,
701 F.2d 243, 244 (2d Cir. 1983).
Clerk has docketed Walker's declaration as a motion for
reconsideration. Doc. No. 8. Walker's motion for judgment
on the pleadings also seeks reconsideration of my order
denying the application to proceed in forma
pauperis. See Doc. No. 9. In addition, Walker
has filed a new motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. Doc. No. 10.
declaration, Walker explains that he only received $300.00 of
the $2, 800.00 settlement amount. See Decl., Doc.
No. 8, at 2. He asserts that the rest of the settlement
amount was signed over to his brother, Thomas Walker, to pay
off debts that he owed to his brother. See Id. He
does not attach any evidence of this transaction and fails to
explain why he did not list the $300.00 from the settlement
agreement on his application to proceed in forma
acknowledges that he in fact had received monetary gifts from
his sister and mother during the twelve-month period prior to
filing this action. See Id. He states that he is
sorry for the misunderstanding. Id.
motion for judgment on the pleadings, Walker concedes that he
does receive $75.00 to $100.00 each month from relatives.
See Mot. J. Pleadings, Doc. No. 9, at 2. He does not
explain, however, why he neglected to mention these monetary
gifts in his application to proceed in forma
pauperis and instead falsely stated that he had received
no money as gifts or from another source during the twelve
months preceding the filing of the action. Cf. Mot.
for Leave Proc. In Forma Pauperis, Doc. No. 2, at
has pointed to no information that I overlooked in denying
his original application to proceed in forma
pauperis. Thus, I deny Walker's motions for
Walker filed a new application to proceed in forma
pauperis, he did not use the Prisoner's Application
form. See Mot. for Leave Proc. In Forma
Pauperis, Doc. No. 10. Nor did Walker attach the
necessary six-month ledger sheet or the prisoner
authorization form, both of which are required if a plaintiff
is an inmate seeking leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. See Id. Accordingly, I deny the new
application to proceed in forma pauperis.
Declaration [Doc. No. 8], which the Clerk
has docketed as a motion for reconsideration; the Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. No. 9]; and
the new Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
[Doc. No. 10] are DENIED.
The Motion to Advance [Doc. No. 11] is
DENIED as moot. Because Walker has not paid
the filing fee, the case is DISMISSED
without prejudice. The Clerk shall close the case.
Walker wishes to proceed in this matter, he may file a motion
to reopen accompanied by a new Prisoner Application to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis in a Civil Rights Action.
The motion to reopen must show cause why Walker neglected to
list the amounts that he had received during the twelve
months prior to filing this action in the prior application
to proceed in forma pauperis. The new prisoner
application to proceed in forma pauperis must
accurately list the amounts of money Walker has received from