United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
se prisoner Frederick Banks has filed this
“Complaint for a Writ of Quo Warranto, Prohibition, and
Mandamus, ” against a federal judge, a United States
Attorney, and various other government
officials.See doc. 1 at 1. He also seeks
leave to pursue his claim in forma pauperis (IFP).
Doc. 2. His IFP application, however, shows that he is not
Court is required to dismiss a case brought IFP if it
determines, at any time, that the allegation of poverty is
untrue. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A). Banks
discloses that he has received $1, 250.00 in the last twelve
months, as “gifts” from “friends, ”
is holding $700.00 in cash, or in a checking or savings
account, and “$250, 000 [in r]eal [e]state, [a] $29,
000 vehicle, [and an] unknown value of stocks and other
investments.” Doc. 2 at 1. His Complaint explains that
he is “a stock and real estate investor and [he]
invest[s] heavily in Hawaii properties, ” that he
“own[s] and operate[s] a record label and [is] an
international recording artist, ” and is extensively
involved in litigation (he does not specify in what
capacity), including pursuing an appeal on behalf of Bernie
Madoff. See doc. 1 at 2.
disclosed assets show that he is not indigent, and thus not
entitled to proceed IFP. Thus, his application should be DENIED
and his case DISMISSED.
Report and Recommendation (R&R) is submitted to the
district judge assigned to this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court's Local Rule 72.3.
Within 14 days of service, any party may file written
objections to this R&R with the Court and serve a copy on
all parties. The document should be captioned
“Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendations.” Any request for additional time to
file objections should be filed with the Clerk for
consideration by the assigned district judge.
the objections period has ended, the Clerk shall submit this
R&R together with any objections to the assigned district
judge. The district judge will review the magistrate
judge's findings and recommendations pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that
failure to timely file objections will result in the waiver
of rights on appeal. 11th Cir. R. 3-1; see Symonett v.
V.A. Leasing Corp., 648 F.App'x 787, 790 (11th Cir.
2016); Mitchell v. United States, 612 F.App'x
542, 545 (11th Cir. 2015).
REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED.
 Despite the caption on his pleading,
its substance makes clear that he seeks monetary damages (in
the amount of $855, 000, 000.00 “plus costs interests
and fees”) and to be “discharged from custody,
” among other relief.
 While a plaintiff need not be
absolutely destitute to proceed IFP, Adkins v. E.I.
Dupont de Nemours, 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948), two
important points must be underscored. First, proceeding IFP
is a privilege, not an entitlement. See Rowland v. Cal.
Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council,
506 U.S. 194, 198 (1993). And second, courts have discretion
to afford litigants IFP status; it's not automatic. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) (courts “may
authorize the commencement” of IFP actions); Denton
v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992); see also
Marceaux v. Democratic Party, 79 F.App'x 185, 186
(6th Cir. 2003) (no abuse of discretion when court determined
plaintiff could afford to pay the filing fee without undue
hardship because he has no room and board expenses, owns a
car, and spends the $250.00 earned each month selling plasma
on completely discretionary items).
“The trial court must be careful to avoid
construing the statute so narrowly that a litigant is
presented with a Hobson's choice between eschewing a
potentially meritorious claim or foregoing life's plain
necessities. But, the same even-handed care must be employed
to assure that federal funds are not squandered to
underwrite, at public expense, either frivolous claims or the
remonstrances of a suitor who is financially able, in whole
or in material part, to pull his own oar.” Temple
v. Ellerthorpe, 586 F.Supp. 848, 850 (D.R.I. 1984)
(internal cites omitted).
 Even if the Court were to allow Banks
to proceed IFP, his Complaint suggests problems with venue in
this Court (Banks is incarcerated in Ohio and the
circumstances he alleges all occurred in Pennsylvania),
immunity issues (his principal allegation is that a federal
judge “defamed” him when he stated “at a .
. . hearing” that Banks was involved in millions of
dollars of illegal stock trades), to say nothing of sheer
frivolity (he alleges that he was “set up” by the
FBI and “may” have been placed “under
illegal CIA FISA electronic surveillance, ” and that he
has had “communications with Ivanka Trump”
alerting her to CIA surveillance of the Trump Campaign).
See doc. 1 at 1-2. Despite his extraordinary
allegations, Banks discloses that he has been evaluated by
psychologists at “FMC Butner, ” and found
competent. Id. at 1. That information suggests that
Banks' more incredible allegations may have some ulterior
motive. Regardless, his statement of his assets (made under
penalty of perjury) shows that he is not entitled to proceed
 The Court will reconsider its
recommendation of dismissal if Banks pays the required
$400.00 filing fee during the 14-day period for objecting to
this Report ...