Mitchem v. Sleepcair, Inc., 2:20-cv-02627

Plaintiff Natalie Mitchem sued Sleepcair, Inc. alleging Title VII, ADA, and Kansas Act Against Discrimination claims based on alleged sexual advances, race/gender/disability discrimination, retaliation, and eventual termination.
Mitchem filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Financial facts: Mitchem earns $48,000/year (net ~$2,900/month), plus ~$302/month stock distribution (total ~$3,202/month); owns a 2015 Chevy Malibu (approx. value $18,000) with $468 monthly payments.
Reported monthly recurring expenses total ~$3,394 plus other debt payments of ~$420/month; a medical-bill garnishment was affecting her pay (amount/duration unspecified).
The magistrate judge found it a close call but concluded Mitchem had not clearly shown inability to pay; recommended denial of IFP and proposed an alternative: pay the $402 filing fee in three monthly installments of $134, with dismissal without prejudice if installments are not made.
The magistrate noted it lacked authority to finally deny IFP under 28 U.S.C. § 636 and therefore issued a report and recommendation to the district judge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Mitchem is financially unable to pay the $402 filing fee	Garnishment and monthly expenses make payment unaffordable	Mitchem has sufficient income/assets (salary, investment distribution, car equity) to cover fee	Close call, court concluded Mitchem did not sufficiently show inability; recommended denying IFP but allowing payment by installment (3 payments of $134)
Whether magistrate judge may deny IFP	Mitchem sought relief before magistrate	Sleepcair had no specific opposing jurisdictional claim	Magistrate lacks authority to enter a dispositive denial; must issue a report and recommendation to district judge (R&R issued)
Consequence of failing to pay under court’s installment plan	Nonpayment would be due to financial hardship	Court asserted fee must be paid; nonpayment warrants dismissal	Recommended dismissal without prejudice if installments are not timely paid

Lister v. Department of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309 (10th Cir. 2005) (holding denial of IFP is a dispositive matter and a magistrate judge must issue a report and recommendation)