United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division
WAYNE H. NORMAN, Plaintiff,
TITLEMAX HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant.
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.
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.
such indigency claims and cognizant of how easily one may
consume a public resource with no financial skin in the game,
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).
the totality of the circumstances, it will do likewise
here. Therefore, within 14 days from the date
this Order is filed, Norman shall disclose to the Court the
(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
(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
(3) Whether he anticipates any future income within the next
(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).
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). 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).
 "[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).
See also Lister v. Dep't of
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)