Steele v. Renaissance at Steele
2:24-cv-02026-SHL-tmp
| W.D. Tenn. | Jan 12, 2024Background
- Sedrick Steele, a resident of Memphis, filed a pro se complaint and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee.
- Federal law requires a $405 civil filing fee, but indigent plaintiffs may apply to waive this fee via an IFP application.
- Steele's IFP application was incomplete, leaving most sections blank, and failing to total section 8.
- The court could not determine Steele's financial eligibility for IFP status due to the incomplete application.
- Judge Tu M. Pham ordered Steele to either submit a properly completed IFP application or pay the filing fee within 30 days or risk dismissal of the case.
Issues
| Issue | Steele's Argument | Renaissance at Steele's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff may proceed IFP | Seeks to proceed IFP | None stated | Must resubmit a complete IFP application or pay the fee to proceed. |
| Sufficiency of IFP application | No argument; incomplete | None stated | Application is deficient; sufficiency requires full completion. |
| Consequence of non-compliance | No argument | None stated | Failure to comply will lead to dismissal per Rule 41(b). |
| Requirement for court fees | Seeks waiver | None stated | Waiver only granted if proper IFP affidavit is submitted and approved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reynolds v. Fed. Bur. of Prisons, [citation="30 F. App'x 574"] (6th Cir. 2002) (court requires a satisfactory inquiry into ability to pay before granting IFP status)
- Broque v. Fort Knox Fed. Credit Union, 1997 WL 242032 (6th Cir. May 8, 1997) (application must fully respond to court's IFP form questions)
(Note: Neither cited case has an official reporter citation as listed; all are only available via F. App’x or WL)