United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division
CHRISTOPHER L. RAY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE .
DeAndrea Savage, appearing pro se, has submitted a
Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. Doc.
2. As additional clarification is needed, Plaintiff is
DIRECTED to supplement her IFP request.
reports no income from wages and $1, 150.00 having been
received in the previous year from carpooling. Doc. 2 at 1.
She has no liquid assets but owns two vehicles and a home.
Doc. 2 at 2. Despite reporting no significant source of
income, Plaintiff claims monthly expenses in excess of $2,
600.00, debts, and two dependents. Id. The Court
presumes that Plaintiff's lack of income is the result of
the employment suspension referred to in her Complaint.
Nevertheless, the Court is concerned by the disparity between
Plaintiff's income and expenses. Plaintiff is
DIRECTED to provide clarification as to if
she is receiving any source of income or assistance not
reflected on the IFP application and, if not, how the
reflected monthly expenses are being financed.
Court is also cognizant of a recently filed case involving a
similarly named plaintiff, Andrea Savage, and nearly
identical named defendants. The information reported in the
respective IFP applications differs considerably. As such,
Plaintiff is DIRECTED to confirm that she
has no other pending cases before this court and,
specifically, that she is not the named plaintiff in
Savage v. International Longshore Association, et.
al. CV4:19-224, filed September 11, 2019.
indigency claims where information appears to have been
omitted, 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 (S.D. Ga. 2013); Robbins v. Universal
Music Grp., 2013 WL 1146865 at *1 (S.D. Ga. Mar.19,
end, it tolerates no lies. Ross v. Fogam, 2011 WL
2516221 at *1 (S.D. Ga. June 23, 2011) (“Ross, a
convicted criminal, chose to burden this Court with
falsehoods, not honesty. The Court thus rejects Ross's
show cause explanation, as it is clear that he purposefully
chose to disguise his filing history and financial
status.”); Johnson v. Chisolm, 2011 WL 3319872
at *1 n. 3 (S.D. Ga. Aug. 1, 2011) (“This Court does
not hesitate to invoke dismissal and other sanctions against
inmates who lie to or otherwise deceive this Court.”);
see also Moss v. Premiere Credit of North America,
LLC, 2013 WL 842515 (11th Cir. Mar. 6, 2013)
(“Moss's [IFP on appeal] motion is denied because
her allegation of poverty appears to be untrue in light of
her financial affidavit and filings in the district
court.”). Plaintiff's application for IFP status
is not sufficiently clear. She, therefore, must amend her
application to proceed IFP. Additionally, she must
disclose the following information within 14 days
from the date of this Order:
(1) Clarify if she receives any income or assistance not
reflected in the original IFP application;
(2) How her reported monthly expenses are being financed, if
at all; and
(3) Clarify whether she has other pending cases before this
Court and, specifically, if she is the named plaintiff in
Savage v. International Longshore Association, et.
al. CV4:19-224, filed September 11, 2019
this information will better illuminate Plaintiff's true
financial condition. In that regard, she must again declare
the facts she pleads to be true and sign her name to that
declaration-under penalty of perjury. If she does not use a
preprinted IFP form to respond (hence, if she uses a blank
sheet of paper), she must insert this above her 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 Plaintiffs convenience. Failure to
comply with this directive will result in a recommendation of
dismissal on IFP-deficiency grounds alone. Kareem v. Home
Source Rental, 2014 WL 24347 at *1 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 2,
 “[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 Service, 2013 WL 1364107 at *1-2 (M.D. Ga. Apr.