Ruff v. Credit Adjustment, Inc., 2:17-cv-00540

Plaintiff Gerry Ruff filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 for civil case No. 2:17-cv-540.
The controlling standard is Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.: IFP is available only if paying the filing fee would deprive the plaintiff of the necessities of life.
Ruff had filed multiple prior cases in this district and proceeded IFP in most; in a recent prior case (2:16-cv-943) the court granted IFP based on financial disclosures showing monthly income of $2,278.82, $200/month support payments to children, $200 cash, and no vehicle.
In the present IFP application, Ruff reported increased monthly income ($2,460.02) but reduced child support to $200 total per month and no cash on hand; he also added a new $500/month car payment and listed different creditors.
The magistrate judge found these changed circumstances indicate Ruff has sufficient assets and that a one-time $400 filing fee would not cause undue hardship or deny him the necessities of life.
The magistrate judge recommended denying the IFP motion and advised the parties of the 14-day objection procedure for objections to the report and recommendation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ruff qualifies for IFP under Adkins (cannot pay fee without depriving necessities)	Ruff asserts indigence sufficient to proceed IFP (application filed claiming limited resources)	Court (implicitly) contends Ruff's updated financials (higher income, reduced support, new car payment) show ability to pay $400 fee without undue hardship	Recommended denial of IFP; paying $400 would not deprive Ruff of necessities
Whether changed financial disclosures justify revisiting prior IFP grant	Ruff did not explicitly argue continuity; relied on current affidavit	Court treated prior IFP grant as not binding in light of materially changed finances	Court considered changes and recommended denial

Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 335 U.S. 331 (1948) (establishes standard for in forma pauperis eligibility — payment must not deprive plaintiff of necessities)
Foster v. Cuyahoga Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., [citation="21 F. App'x 239"] (6th Cir. 2001) (explains test is whether court costs can be paid without undue hardship)
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (failure to object to a magistrate judge’s report bars de novo review and may waive appellate rights)
United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981) (same — procedural consequences of failing to object to a magistrate judge’s report)