Opinion
CIVIL 3:24-cv-00876-MPS
06-25-2024
James Manson, Plaintiff, v. Caron et al, Defendants.
RECOMMENDED RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
HON. THOMAS O. FARRISH, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
1. Introduction
The plaintiff, James Manson, is an inmate at the Enfield Correctional Institution in Enfield, Connecticut. He has sued several prison officials for violating his civil rights (Compl., ECF No. 1), and he also applied for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, or “IFP.” (ECF No. 2.) In other words, he asked for permission to begin his suit without pre-paying $405.00 in filing and administrative fees.
The Clerk of the Court assigned Mr. Manson's case to United States District Judge Michael P. Shea. In the District of Connecticut, however, motions for leave to proceed IFP are reviewed in the first instance by a United States Magistrate Judge. See United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, Guide for Self-Represented Litigants, at 6 (“[T]he motion to proceed in forma pauperis . . . will be reviewed by a Magistrate Judge.”). When the motion deserves to be granted, the Magistrate Judge will typically be the one to grant it. See, e.g., Ambrose v. Guadaramma, No. 3:24-cv-926 (VAB) (TOF), 2024 WL 2836228, at *2 (D. Conn. May 31, 2024). But when the IFP motion deserves to be denied, the Magistrate Judge will ordinarily only recommend denial to the District Judge, rather than deny it himself. This is because Magistrate Judges are not generally authorized to dismiss cases, and denying an IFP motion can sometimes be “the functional equivalent of an involuntary dismissal[.]” Woods v. Dahlberg, 894 F.2d 187 (6th Cir. 1990).
The undersigned Magistrate Judge has reviewed Mr. Manson's application and supporting materials. For the reasons that follow, he recommends that Judge Shea deny the motion for leave to proceed IFP.
2. Governing Legal Principles
A federal law allows inmates to commence civil actions without pre-paying the filing fee when, among other requirements, they submit affidavits showing that they are “unable to pay.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Supreme Court has explained that an IFP affidavit “sufficient[ly]” demonstrates an inability to pay when it shows that the applicant “cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for the costs and still be able to provide himself and [his] dependents with the necessities of life.” Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948). While the applicant does not need to prove absolute destitution, Potnick v. E. State Hosp., 701 F.2d 243, 244 (2d Cir. 1983), he does need to show that pre-paying the fee would “constitute a serious hardship.” Fiebelkorn v. U.S., 77 Fed.Cl. 59, 62 (2007).
When a prisoner's inmate trust account balance is lower than the filing fee, courts often grant leave to proceed IFP. In Simmons v. Torres, for example, an inmate filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which ordinarily requires a $5.00 filing fee. No. 3:07-cv-1409 (VLB), 2007 WL 3171356, at *1 (D. Conn. Oct. 26, 2007). Because he “provided a copy of his inmate account statement reflecting a spendable balance of $0.43,” Judge Bryant granted his motion to proceed IFP. Id.
Yet courts typically deny IFP motions when the inmate's low trust account balance is a result of his own voluntary spending decisions. As Judge Shea has previously explained, when “considering a prisoner's affidavit of indigence, the district court may inquire whether, if a prisoner has no cash credit at the moment of filing, he had disabled himself by a recent drawing on his account and if so, for what purposes.” Hinton v. Pearson, No. 3:21-cv-863 (MPS), 2021 WL 3036921, at *2 (D. Conn. July 19, 2021) (quoting Miller v. Brown, No. CV 112-166, 2013 WL 1346826, at *2 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 21, 2013)) (quotation marks omitted). In Hinton, the plaintiff had only $132.91 in his trust account at the time he filed his suit. Id. at *1. But his account statement revealed that he had received over $3,500.00 in the preceding six months, money that he “chose to spend . . . in the commissary or send . . . out of the facility.” Id. at *2. Because “[t]he plaintiff had sufficient funds to pay the filing fee . . . but chose to spend those funds on other things to render himself eligible for [IFP] status,” the Court denied his IFP motion. Id.; see also Clark v. Pappoosha, No. 3:21-cv-1690 (CSH), 2022 WL 960296, at *2 (D. Conn. Mar. 30, 2022) (denying IFP motion in part because inmate “received a total of $1,645.00 in deposits during a six-month period prior to filing [his] action,” yet “made numerous personal withdrawals”); Brown v. Ruiz, No. 3:20-cv-1202 (KAD), 2020 WL 6395480, at *1 (D. Conn. Nov. 2, 2020) (denying IFP motion because inmate “had deposits exceeding $3,850.00 in the seven months prior to filing [his] action,” but “made purchases at the commissary and regularly sent money out of the facility”).
Before denying an IFP motion on account of an inmate's spending, however, courts must consider whether the inmate's expenditures were necessary or optional. As noted above, the Supreme Court has held that a litigant is entitled to proceed IFP if he shows that he cannot simultaneously pay the filing fee and afford “the necessities of life.” Adkins, 335 U.S. at 339. And while the Second Circuit has observed that “what constitutes the ‘necessities of life' . . . is obviously different for prisoners, most of whose necessities are paid for by the jurisdiction that incarcerates them[,]” In re Epps, 888 F.2d 964, 967 (2d Cir. 1989), it has also observed that inmates sometimes have “financial obligations” such as “medical debts, court fees, student loans[,]” and family support orders. Rosa v. Doe, 86 F.4th 1001, 1009 (2d Cir. 2023). These obligations “warrant consideration” in the IFP analysis, and they can support IFP status even when the inmate's account balance exceeds the filing fee by a meaningful amount. Id. The plaintiff in Rosa, for example, claimed to “support[] his mother and son with monthly payments totaling $86.66,” and he was therefore entitled to IFP status even though his account balance exceeded the filing fee by $174.98. Id. at 1005-06, 1009-10.
To help prisoners demonstrate the necessity of their expenses, the District of Connecticut has prepared a standard IFP application form. (ECF No. 2.) The form prompts the applicant to disclose “[h]ow much money” he “contribute[s] each month to the support of family members or other individuals,” and it gives him space to state the name of the person he supports and his relationship to him or her. (Id. at 3.) The form also prompts the applicant to state the amount he “spend[s] each month on necessities of life that are not provided for [him] by the Department of Correction,” and it gives him space to identify the items he purchases and the amounts he spends on each one. (Id.) Finally, the form invites him to attach additional pages if he needs more space in which to explain his necessary expenses. (Id.) A copy of the form is attached as Exhibit A.
3. Application to Mr. Manson's Case
In this case, Mr. Manson filled out the form, and he provided a certified copy of his inmate trust account statement as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The last entry on the trust account statement reflects a balance of $213.51, which is $191.49 less than the $405.00 filing fee. (ECF No. 3.) But the statement also reflects that he spent $2,935.17 in the preceding six months. (ECF No. 3.) Thus, the principal question presented by his IFP motion is whether he has sufficiently shown those expenses to have been necessary. He has not.
To begin with, Mr. Manson stated in his IFP application form that he does not contribute to the financial support of any family member or other individual. (ECF No. 2, at 3.) Moreover, he disclosed no student loans, medical debts, restitution obligations, or any of the other obligations referenced by the Second Circuit in Rosa. Rather, Mr. Manson claims to spend $1,016.28each month on himself - $371.42 for “food and hygiene”; $639.81 on “food, clothing, [and] cosmetics”; and $5.05 on cologne. (Id.) He does not explain why “cosmetics” and “cologne” qualify as “necessities of life,” and accordingly his claim boils down to this: even though the Department of Correction (“DOC”) feeds and clothes him, he must necessarily spend over $1,000.00 a month -or over $12,000.00 per year - on other food and clothing or on personal hygiene items.
The trust account statement does not confirm these claims. As noted above, the statement shows expenses of $2,935.17 from November 2023 to April 2024, a rate of $489.20 per month.
This claim cannot be accepted. The court keeps itself informed on the prices that the DOC charges for food, toiletries and other personal care items, and this level of spending cannot possibly be “necessary.” According to the DOC's commissary price list, which is attached as Exhibit B, the commissary charge for a Snickers bar is $1.37; hair gel costs $2.41; and a tube of toothpaste costs $1.59. Thus, the amount that Mr. Manson claims to spend would buy 200 Snickers bars, 200 bottles of hair gel, and 150 tubes of toothpaste - every month, and on top of the resources the Department provides him for free. And even if one uses the $489.20 figure suggested by the trust account statement - rather than the $1,016.28 figure that Mr. Manson provided under penalty of perjury - he could still buy a box of cereal ($4.98), a can of beef stew ($2.08), a bag of Doritos ($2.20), a candy bar ($1.37), a bottle of shampoo ($1.99), and a package of AAA batteries ($2.73) every single day of his incarceration, and still have more than $30.00 left over each month for postage, movie and music downloads, and the like. Considering the prices charged by the DOC for food, toiletries, and personal care items, neither $489.20 nor $1,016.28 can be regarded as a “necessary” level of spending.
“[A]ll litigants must make decisions about how to spend their money when they are contemplating litigation.” Brown, 2020 WL 6395480, at *1. “If the inmate thinks a more worthwhile use of his funds would be to buy” non-essential items than to pay a filing fee, “he has demonstrated an implied evaluation of the suit that the district court is entitled to honor.” Id. (quoting Lumbert v. Ill. Dep't of Corr., 827 F.2d 257, 260 (7th Cir. 1987)). While Mr. Manson does not currently have the $405.00 filing fee in his account, this is the result of his own voluntary spending decisions. Here, as in Hinton, “[t]he plaintiff had sufficient funds to pay the filing fee . . . but chose to spend those funds on other things[.]” 2021 WL 3036921, at *2. “[T]his is not the proper use of the in forma pauperis statute.” Id.
The Court notes that Mr. Manson's complaint arises out of a strip search that occurred on March 8, 2024. (Compl., ECF No. 1, at 3.) It therefore acknowledges that the sums he spent before that date could not have been for the calculated purpose of rendering himself eligible for IFP status, because he did not yet know that he might be filing this suit. See Sanders v. Martin, No. 3:24-cv-1005, slip op. at 3-4 (D. Conn. June 24, 2024) (observing that, although 28 U.S.C. § 1915 directs district courts to consider an inmate's expenses for the six months preceding his suit, the “most relevant” period is the period when he was “contemplating litigation”). But even after the strip search, Mr. Manson kept spending at levels that cannot be regarded as “necessary.” (See ECF No. 3) (trust account statement reflecting nearly $850.00 in commissary and other purchases between March 8, 2024 and April 30, 2024). Indeed, on March 15, 2024 - just a week after the strip search - he spent $50.00 on “JPay Media” entertainment downloads. (Id. at 3.)
Finally, the Court notes another, independent reason for recommending dismissal of Mr. Manson's IFP motion. In considering whether a litigant is entitled to IFP status, courts consider not only the litigant's own resources, but also “the resources that the applicant has or can get from those who ordinarily provide [him] with the necessities of life, such as from a spouse, parent, adult sibling or other next friend.” Fridman v. City of N.Y., 195 F.Supp.2d 534, 537 (S.D.N.Y 2002) (quotation marks and citation omitted). In this case, even if the Court were to imagine that Mr. Manson genuinely spends hundreds and hundreds of dollars a month on “necessities” not provided for him by the DOC, those necessities are being supplied by a family member or friend. The trust account discloses that, in addition to the $40.00 that he earns each month as a prison barber, Mr. Manson receives an average of $412.95 in outside deposits. (ECF No. 3) (reflecting $2,477.70 in deposits other than prison pay between November 2023 and April 2024).
For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that Judge Shea deny the plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The plaintiff is respectfully advised that if Judge Shea accepts my recommendation, he will have to pay the $405.00 filing fee or his lawsuit will likely be dismissed. See, e.g., Richardson v. Napoli, No. 9:09-CV-1440 (TJM) (DEP), 2010 WL 1235383 (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2010) (dismissing case where plaintiff neither demonstrated his entitlement to proceed in forma pauperis nor paid the filing fee).
This is a recommended ruling by a magistrate judge. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(1); D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 72.1(C). If the plaintiff wishes to object to my recommendation, he must file that objection with the Clerk of the Court by July 15, 2024. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2) (objections to magistrate judge recommendations to be filed within fourteen days); D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 72.2(a) (allowing five additional days for persons who receive the recommendation from the Clerk of the Court via mail); Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a)(2)(C) (stating that, when a filing period “would end on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until . . . the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday”). If he fails to file a timely objection, his failure “operates as a waiver of any further judicial review[.]” Small v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989). In particular, failure to file a timely objection operates as a waiver of the right to seek appellate review in the Court of Appeals. Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72; Fed.R.Civ.P. 6; see also Impala v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 670 Fed.Appx. 32 (2d Cir. 2016) (summary order).
EXHIBIT A
PRISONER'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS IN A CIVIL RIGHTS ACTION
ATTACH THIS FORM TO YOUR COMPLAINT
I,______________, [your name] state that, because of my poverty, I am unable to pay the filing fee for the above-captioned lawsuit at the time that I file my complaint. I therefore request permission to file my complaint without pre-payment of the filing fee, and to proceed in forma pauperis (as a poor person).
I understand that I cannot file for free. I realize that even if the Court allows me to proceed in forma pauperis, I will have to pay the full filing fee of $350 through installments deducted from my inmate trust fund. I also understand that the Department of Correction Inmate Trust Fund will continue to deduct money from my inmate trust fund to pay the filing fee to the Court, even if my lawsuit is dismissed.
I also understand that I must support my claim of poverty by truthfully answering all of the following questions and by obtaining a signed certification of the balance of my inmate trust fund from the DOC Inmate Trust Fund or my prison counselor. I realize that I may be prosecuted for perjury if I lie on this application, and that perjury is punishable by imprisonment for up to five years and/or a fine of $250,000 (18 U.S.C. §§ 1621, 3571).
WARNING: You MUST complete EVERY section, or your application may be denied. Answer every question truthfully and accurately. If the true and accurate answer to a question is “zero” or “not applicable,” you must write that - do not leave the question blank.
1. Full Name: ______________
2. Inmate Number: ______________
3. Correctional Institution: ______________
4. Are you currently employed? (Yes or No): ______________
5. If you are currently employed, state your job title and the amount you get paid each month:
Job: ______________
Monthly wages: $ ______________
6. Within the past twelve (12) months, how much money have you received from the following sources? If none, write “zero.”
a. Employment: Type______________ $ ______________
b. Rent someone paid you: $ ______________
c. Interest on savings: $ ______________
d. Dividends on investments: $ ______________
e. Pensions, annuities, or life insurance: $ ______________
f. Gifts or inheritances: $ ______________
g. Disability payments: $ ______________
h. Other sources: Type______________ $ ______________
7. How much money do you have in cash, or in checking or savings accounts, including your inmate trust account? If none, write “zero.”
$ ______________
8. What is the total value of property you own, excluding ordinary household furnishings and clothing, but including automobiles, real estate, stocks, bonds, and notes? If none, write “zero.”
$ ______________
9. How much money do you contribute each month to the support of family members or other individuals? Provide the name of each person you support and the relationship between you (e.g., husband, wife, domestic partner, child, or grandparent). If you need more space, attach an additional page.
a. Name & Relationship: ______________$ ______________
b. Name & Relationship: ______________$ ______________
c. Name & Relationship: ______________$ ______________
10. How much money do you spend each month on necessities of life that are not provided for you by the Department of Correction? State the item and amount, and if you need more space, attach an additional page.
a. Item: ______________$ ______________
b. Item: ______________$ ______________
c. Item: ______________$ ______________
DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY
WARNING: You MUST sign this section or your application for IFP status will be denied.
I,______________, the applicant, declare under penalty of perjury that the information I have provided in this application is true and correct.
Signed: ______________
Dated: ______________
WARNING: You have not finished. You MUST complete the next section.
PRISONER AUTHORIZATION
WARNING: You MUST complete and sign this section and then show this page to the Inmate Trust Fund Department or your prison counselor so that they can sign the next section.
Your name: ______________
Your inmate number: ______________
DOC facility where you are detained: ______________
Case Number [leave blank for Clerk]:
Filing Date [leave blank for Clerk]:
I,______________, the applicant, understand that even if my request for In Forma Pauperis status is granted, Congress has said that I must pay the full filing fee of $350, which will be deducted in installments from my inmate trust fund. I further understand that the deductions from my inmate trust fund will continue until the full fee is paid, even if my case is dismissed before then.
I authorize the Department of Correction Inmate Trust Fund to: (1) certify on the next page of this application the current and average balance over the last six months of my inmate trust fund; (2) send the Court copies of my trust fund statement for the past six months; (3) obtain funds to cover the $350 filing fee by deducting installment payments from my inmate trust fund based on the average of deposits to or balance in my inmate trust fund, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. Section 1915; (4) send the $350 payment for the filing fee to the Court.
Signed: ______________[Your signature]
Dated: ______________[Today's date]
WARNING: You have not finished. You MUST show this page to the Inmate Trust Fund Department or your prison counselor so that they can sign the next section. Do NOT send this application to the Court without the signature of the Inmate Trust Fund Department or your prison counselor on the next page.
CERTIFICATION OF INMATE ACCOUNT BALANCE
WARNING: You MUST show this application to the Inmate Trust Fund Department or your prison counselor so that they can read page 4 and sign this section.
Your name: ______________
Your inmate number: ______________
DOC facility where you are detained: ______________
I,______________, counselor/employee of the Connecticut Department of Correction Inmate Trust Fund, certify that the applicant named herein has the sum of $______________ on account.
I further certify that, according to the records of the institution, the applicant's average balance for the past six months was $______________ and the average monthly deposits during the same period were $ ______________.
A certified copy of the applicant's trust fund statement for the last six (6) months is attached.
Signed: ______________(Inmate Trust Fund Officer or Prison Counselor)
Name & Rank: ______________
Date: ______________
CHECKLIST FOR IFP APPLICATION
NOTE: Before you send this application to the Court, you MUST:
______________ Sign the declaration under penalty of perjury on p. 3.
______________Sign the Prisoner Authorization on p. 4.
______________Show the application to the Inmate Trust Fund Department or your prison counselor and have them sign p. 5.
______________ Answer every question truthfully and accurately.
______________Attach the trust fund statement for the last six (6) months (ledger sheet).
EXHIBIT B
(Image Omitted)
(Image Omitted)