United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division
ANGELA A. MANSFIELD, Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES, Defendant.
CHRISTOPHER L. RAY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
appearing pro se, has submitted a complaint, doc. 1,
and motion to amend, doc. 7, alleging multiple statutory and
constitutional claims. She seeks to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP). Doc. 2. The information she has provided
in support of her IFP motion is incomplete. She must,
therefore, clarify her financial status, or pay the required
filing fee, before her case can proceed.
is employed and receives $2, 637.00 each month in wages. Doc.
2 at 1. She also affirms having received income from other
sources during the previous year, though the nature of this
income is unclear. Id. Plaintiff holds as assets a
truck-valued at $10, 000.00-and, the court deduces, a
home. Doc. 2 at 2. These facts would typically
not support a conclusion that IFP is
appropriate. The Court, however, notes that plaintiff
has indicated considerable debt and monthly expenses in
excess of monthly income. Id. Those monthly expenses
include a vague reference to $300.00 in “miscellaneous
costs.” Id. Also, a $1, 800.00 expense to
Title Max is listed as both a monthly expense and debt,
making it unclear to the Court if $1, 800.00 is a recurring
monthly obligation or the total value of an outstanding loan.
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, at best, incomplete. She, therefore, must amend her
application to proceed IFP, to unambiguously
disclose the following information within 14 days
from the date of this Order:
(1) The source and amount of any non-wage income received
within the previous 12-months;
(2) All held assets (e.g., homes, vehicles, household
(3) The type and amount of all regular monthly expenses; and
(4) Monthly payments toward outstanding debts.
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 Plaintiff's 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, 2014).
 Included amongst listed monthly
expenses and debts are references to a mortgage. Doc. 2 at 2.
This suggests the ownership of real property and related
furnishings that are not listed amongst plaintiff's
 A party need not establish that they
are completely destitute, but must demonstrate that, because
of their poverty, they are “unable to pay for the court
fees and costs, and to support and provide necessities for
himself and his dependents.” Martinez v. Kristi
Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.34 1305, 1307 (11th Cir. 2004).
IFP is reserved for those for which the Court's ...