United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Athens Division
D. LAND CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”) on appeal (ECF No. 58) from the
Court's December 7, 2018, Judgment (ECF No. 56) in
Defendant's favor. For the reasons explained below,
Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.
may authorize a litigant to proceed without prepayment of
fees so long as they are “unable to pay such fees or
give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1);
see Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d
1305, 1306 n.1 (11th Cir. 2004) (explaining that 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(1) “applies to all persons requesting
leave to proceed IFP”). However, “[t]here is no
absolute right to be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in
civil matters; rather it is a privilege extended to those
unable to pay filing fees when the action is not frivolous or
malicious.” Startti v. United States, 415 F.2d
1115, 1116 (5th Cir. 1969) (per curiam); see also,
e.g., Brewster v. N. Am. Van Lines, Inc., 461 F.2d 649,
651 (7th Cir. 1972) (“This privilege to proceed without
posting security for costs and fees is reserved to the many
truly impoverished litigants who, within the District
Court's sound discretion, would remain without legal
remedy if such privilege were not afforded to them.”).
Rule of Appellate Procedure 24 requires a party wishing to
appeal IFP to file a motion in the district court and attach
an affidavit that shows “the party's inability to
pay . . . for fees and costs[.]” Fed. R. App. P.
24(a)(1)(A). Rule 24 further provides that “[a] party
who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the
district-court action . . . may proceed on appeal in forma
pauperis without further authorization, unless . . . the
district court . . . certifies that the appeal is not taken
in good faith or finds that the party is not otherwise
entitled to proceed in forma pauperis[.]” Fed. R. App.
district court has wide discretion in determining whether to
grant an applicant's motion to proceed IFP. In exercising
this discretion, it must determine “whether the
statements in the affidavit satisfy the requirement of
poverty.” Martinez, 364 F.3d at 1307 (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). While an applicant for
IFP status need not show that he is “absolutely
destitute, ” he must sufficiently establish that he
“is unable to pay for the court fees and costs, and [is
unable] to support and provide necessities for himself and
his dependents.” Id. (citations omitted).
Court finds that Plaintiff is able to pay the fees and costs
of an appeal and, therefore, is not entitled to proceed IFP.
Plaintiff states that over the past twelve months he has had
an average monthly income of about $10, 500 between
employment and public assistance. Mot. to Proceed IFP 2., ECF
No. 58. He expects his monthly income to be about $4, 400
next month. Id. Thus, even if only considering the
lesser expected income of next month, Plaintiff's
expected yearly income would be $52, 000. Id.
income significantly exceeds the 2018 Poverty Guideline of
$12, 140 for a one-person household. See 2018 HHS
Poverty Guidelines, 83 Fed. Reg. 2642, 2643 (Jan. 18,
2018); see also Martinez, 364 F.3d at
1307 n.7 (referring to poverty levels). Consequently,
Plaintiff's motion to proceed IFP is denied.
the Court finds that Plaintiff has not established that he is
unable to pay the fees and costs for an appeal, his motion to
proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED. If
Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this appeal, he must pay the
entire $505.00 appellate filing fee within fourteen (14)
days. Any further requests to proceed IFP on appeal should be
directed, on motion, to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit, in accordance with Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 24.
 In Bonner v. City of Prichard,
Ala., 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc),
the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all
decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to