Ondrick II v. City of Savannah, Georgia
4:14-cv-00161
| S.D. Ga. | Aug 13, 2014Background
- Ondrick II, proceeding pro se, filed three 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suits, including this one based on a state court guilty plea for criminal trespass.
- Plaintiff seeks in forma pauperis (IFP) status on the basis of claimed indigence, despite an address listing a large residence.
- Court questions the credibility of Ondrick’s zero-asset declaration and notes prior authority allowing scrutiny of indigency claims.
- Judge orders detailed financial disclosures within 14 days, including living expenses, income sources, assets, and financial support.
- Clerk directed to provide a blank IFP form; Ondrick must respond to enumerated items and re-affirm truthfulness under penalty of perjury.
- Non-compliance with the disclosure order could lead to a recommendation of dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IFP status should be granted given Ondrick’s finances. | Ondrick asserts zero assets and indigence. | Court should scrutinize and likely deny IFP based on credibility concerns. | Court earmarks detailed disclosures before deciding IFP. |
| What financial information Ondrick must reveal to support IFP eligibility. | N/A (procedural) | N/A (procedural) | Enumerated financial disclosures required within 14 days. |
| Whether failure to provide truthful financial information warrants dismissal. | N/A | Providing false information is sanctionable and grounds for dismissal. | Non-compliance or dishonesty may lead to dismissal or sanctions. |
| Whether the court must provide a blank IFP form and how to respond. | N/A | N/A | Clerk to furnish blank IFP form for Ondrick to complete after order. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194 (1993) (IFP is a discretionary privilege; courts scrutinize indigency)
- Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992) (IFP decisions are discretionary under 28 U.S.C. § 1915)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (Sanctions and frivolous filings may justify IFP denial)
- Lee v. McDonald's Corp., 231 F.3d 456 (8th Cir. 2000) (Explains purpose of 1915 and discretionary nature of IFP rulings)