Opinion
15-cr-20677-BLOOM
08-10-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD SHELLEY, Defendant.
ORDER ON MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
BETH BLOOM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant Richard Shelley's (“Movant”) Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) on Appeal, ECF No. [185]. For the following reasons, the Application is denied.
The Court “has wide discretion in denying an application to proceed IFP under 28 U.S.C. [section] 1915.” Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305, 1306 (11th Cir. 2004) (alteration added; quoting Flowers v. Turbine Support Div., 507 F.2d 1242, 1244 (5th Cir. 1975)). Here, Defendant has an account balance of $714.62 with $0.00 in debts or other encumbrances. See ECF No. [185] at 3.The Court thus concludes that Movant possesses sufficient funds to pay the $505.00 filing fee. See Martin v. United States, 317 Fed.Appx. 869, 870-71 (11th Cir. 2008) (affirming dismissal of complaint without prejudice where inmate had $1,818 in deposits made into his account over the previous six months); see also Lay v. Okla. Dep't of Corr., 746 Fed.Appx. 777, 779 (10th Cir. 2018) (district court did not abuse its discretion by requiring prisoner to prepay $400 filing fee where prisoner had $550.67 in his trust account when he filed suit). For the foregoing reasons, the Court certifies that Movant is not entitled to proceed IFP. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(4)(B).
The Court uses the pagination generated by the electronic CM/ECF database, which appears in the headers of all court filings.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant's Application to Proceed IFP on Appeal, ECF No. [185], is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on August 9, 2023.