Logan Dyjak v. Dana Wilkerson, 21-2119

Dyjak, civilly detained at McFarland Mental Health Center after a not-guilty-by-reason-of-mental-disease finding, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging retaliation and other constitutional violations.
Dyjak filed multiple in forma pauperis (IFP) applications while pursuing the § 1983 suit and other cases. Early applications reported almost no cash and no trust-account activity.
Dyjak received two economic stimulus checks ($1,200 and $600), deposited them into a trust account, and shortly thereafter transferred the funds to a friend (Bauer) who paid for clothing, food, and other items; Dyjak also listed a $5,000 personal debt to Bauer and outstanding court fees.
The district court denied Dyjak’s IFP requests (citing that Dyjak had $1,800 during a relevant 11-day period), denied reconsideration (stating Dyjak had rendered funds inaccessible), and later dismissed the complaint for failure to pay the filing fee. Dyjak appealed the IFP denials and the reconsideration denial.
The Seventh Circuit found the district court relied only on Dyjak’s assets (and trust-account data from another case), failed to consider liabilities or explain whether it found misconduct, and vacated and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant/Court's Argument	Held
Whether denial of IFP was proper given Dyjak’s temporary possession of $1,800	Dyjak: court must consider liabilities and necessity; stimulus funds were disclosed and largely transferred to pay debts and necessities	District court: Dyjak had $1,800 during a relevant period, so IFP inappropriate; funds were “rendered inaccessible”	Vacated and remanded—district court abused discretion by considering only assets and not Dyjak’s debts or explaining its reasoning
Whether misconduct or deliberate misrepresentation justified denial/sanction	Dyjak: fully disclosed both payments and did not willfully conceal funds; believed courts would withdraw fees automatically	District court suggested funds were made inaccessible but did not find deliberate misrepresentation	Vacated—court made no finding of deliberate misrepresentation and failed to analyze whether misconduct occurred; remand required

Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours, 335 U.S. 331 (1948) (IFP applicant need not be "absolutely destitute"; court should consider ability to pay while meeting necessities)
Kennedy v. Huibregtse, 831 F.3d 441 (7th Cir. 2016) (courts have broad discretion to consider income and competing demands when ruling on IFP)
James v. Eli, 889 F.3d 320 (7th Cir. 2018) (abuse of discretion occurs when a court overlooks essential evidence or fails to consider relevant factors)
Turley v. Gaetz, 625 F.3d 1005 (7th Cir. 2010) (denial of IFP is immediately appealable)
McWilliams v. Cook County, 845 F.3d 244 (7th Cir. 2017) (standard of review for IFP determinations is abuse of discretion)
Robertson v. French, 949 F.3d 347 (7th Cir. 2020) (dismissal for false poverty allegations requires deliberate misrepresentation)
Thomas v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 288 F.3d 305 (7th Cir. 2002) (court must dismiss frivolous suits or when allegations of poverty are untrue)