Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Norman v. Titlemax Holdings LLC

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division

March 23, 2017

WAYNE H. NORMAN, Plaintiff,
v.
TITLEMAX HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant.

          ORDER

         Proceeding pro se, Wayne H. Norman brings this Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. § 227) case against Titlemax Holdings, LLC, for "negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on his cellular telephone without his prior express consent within the meaning of the TCPA." Doc. 1 at 1. He seeks actual and statutory damages. Id. at 2.

         He also seeks leave to file this case in forma pauperis (IFP). Doc. 2. Norman, who lists a non-prison address, says he receives $675/month in unemployment compensation and received a $1500 payment "in settlement compensation." Id. at 1. He claims "$0.00" in savings, ownership of a "1999 Toyota Corolla, " no dependents, no debts, and no monthly operating expenses like rent, utilities, or food. Id. at 2.

         Wary of such indigency claims and cognizant of how easily one may consume a public resource with no financial skin in the game, [1] this Court demands supplemental information from dubious IFP movants. See, e.g., Kareem v. Home Source Rental, 986 F.Supp.2d 1345, 1346-48 (S.D. Ga. 2013); Robbins v. Universal Music Group, 2013 WL 1146865 at * 1 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 19, 2013).[2]

         Given the totality of the circumstances, it will do likewise here.[3] Therefore, within 14 days from the date this Order is filed, Norman shall disclose to the Court the following information:

(1) What he spends each month - broken down by category - for basic living expenses such as food, clothing, shelter, and utilities, and the dollar value of any other (beyond unemployment compensation) public or private assistance he may receive;
(2) Whether he possesses a cellular telephone, TV set, and any home electronics equipment (include estimated value and related carrying expenses, such as carrier and subscription fees);
(3) Whether he anticipates any future income within the next year;
(4) A list of any other cases showing an indigency-based, filing fee reduction or waiver granted by any other court (include the full case name, case number and the name of the court granting same).

         Answering these points will better illuminate plaintiffs true financial condition. In that regard, he must declare the facts he pleads to be true under penalty of perjury. If he does not use a preprinted IFP form to respond (hence, if he uses a blank sheet of paper), he must insert this above his signature: "I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date)." 28 U.S.C. § 1746(1).[4] The Clerk is DIRECTED to serve with this Order a blank IFP form for Norman's convenience. Failure to comply with this directive will result in a recommendation of dismissal. See Kareem v. Home Source Rental, 2014 WL 24347 at *1 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 2, 2014).

         SO ORDERED.

---------

Notes:

[1] "[A] litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public... lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits." Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). Courts thus deploy appropriate scrutiny. See Hobby v. Beneficial Mortg. Co. of Va., 2005 WL 5409003 at *7 (E.D. Va. June 3, 2005) (debtor denied IFP status where, although she was unable to find employment as a substitute teacher, she had not shown she is unable to work and earn income in other ways); In re Fromal, 151 B.R. 733, 735 (E.D. Va. 1993) (denying IFP application where debtor was licensed attorney and accountant and she offered no reason why she cannot find employment), cited in In re Zow, 2013 WL 1405533 at * 2 (Bkrtcy. S.D. Ga. Mar. 4, 2013) (denying IFP to "highly educated" bankruptcy debtor who, inter alia, had "not shown he is physically unable to work or earn income in other ways."); Nixon v. United Parcel Serv., 2013 WL 1364107 at *l-2 (M.D. Ga. Apr. 3, 2013) (court examined income and expenses on long-form IFP affidavit and determined that plaintiff in fact had the ability to pay the court's filing fee).

[2] See also Lister v. Dep't of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1313 (10th Cir. 2005) (court did not abuse its discretion by denying IFP status to Social Security benefits claimant seeking judicial review of Commissioner's benefits denial; claimant, after having been specifically instructed on how to establish IFP status, failed to fill out proper forms or otherwise provide court with requisite financial information); Mullins v. Barnhart, 2010 WL 1643581 at * 1 (D. Kan. Mar, 30, 2010) ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.