United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division
DEON H. BANKS, Plaintiff,
CHRISTOPHER L RAY JUDGE
a prisoner at the Georgia State Prison, has submitted a 42
U.S.C. § 1983 Complaint alleging failure to protect.
Doc. 1. He seeks to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP).
Doc. 3. As the IFP application is incomplete, plaintiff is
DIRECTED to supplement his IFP request.
has provided no relevant information in his application to
proceed IFP. In fact, the form is blank except for the case
caption and plaintiff's signature. The Court does not
assume that the lack of information reflects a lack of
resources and plaintiff's inability to pay the filing
fee. Wary of 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, the Court 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
omits all material details. He, therefore, must properly fill
out his application to proceed IFP, answering all presented
this information will better illuminate plaintiffs true
financial condition. In that regard, he must again declare
the facts he pleads to be true, and sign his name to that
declaration-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 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.
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); Swain v.
Colorado Tech. Univ., 2014 WL 3012730 at *1 n. 1 (S.D.
Ga. May 14, 2014).
 See also Lister v. Dep't of
Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1313 (10th Cir. 2005) (court
did not abuse its discretion by denying 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) (denying, after
scrutinizing IFP affidavit's financial data, leave to
proceed IFP on financial ability grounds).
 Furthermore, liars may be prosecuted.
See United States v. Dickerson, CR608-36, doc. 1
(S.D. Ga. Dec. 11, 2008) (§ 2255 movant indicted for
perjury for knowingly lying in his motion seeking collateral
relief from his conviction); id., doc. 47 (guilty verdict),
cited in Colony Ins. Co. v. 9400 Abercorn, LLC, 866
F.Supp.2d 1376, 1378 n. 2 (S.D. Ga. 2012) (collecting
 A few important points must be
First, proceeding [IFP] in a civil case is a privilege
or favor granted by the government. Rowland v. California
Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council,
506 U.S. 194, 198, 113 S.Ct. 716, 121 L.Ed.2d 656 (1993).
Second, the statute reads that the court “may authorize
the commencement” of an action. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(1). The grant, denial, or other decision concerning
an [IFP] application requires the court to exercise
discretion. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31,
112 S.Ct. 1728, 118 L.Ed.2d 340 (1992); see also Lee v.
McDonald's Corp., 231 F.3d 456, 458 (8th Cir.2000)
(explaining the purpose of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and stating
the decision of whether to grant or deny in [IFP] s status
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is discretionary).
Lafontaine v. Tobin, 2013 WL 4048571 at *1
(N.D. Iowa Aug. 9, 2013) (emphasis added); see also
Marceaux v. Democratic Party, 79 Fed.Appx. 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 ...