Byrne v. Delta Airline, Inc
2:25-cv-00752
| D. Vt. | Nov 14, 2025
                                                              prey lo □□□□□ Coy 
                                                              DISTRICT OF VERMG 
                                                                    □□□□□  □□ 
                UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
                             FOR THE                        ZAIS HOV 14  AM ig: 
                     DISTRICT OF VERMONT                       CLERK 
                                                             ay Vi) 
JODIE LOUISE BYRNE,                                                DEPUTY CLERR 
      Plaintiff,                       ) 
                                       ) 
V.                                     )      Case No. 2:25-cv-752 
                                       ) 
DELTA AIRLINE, INC. and ALLIANZ, INC.,       ) 
                                       ) 
      Defendants.                      ) 
              ENTRY ORDER DENYING RENEWED 
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 
                              (Doc. 4) 
A review of the docket in this case reveals the following: 
1.  On September 10, 2025, self-represented Plaintiff Jodie Louise Byrne sought 
   in forma pauperis (“IFP’’) status, seeking to file an action against Delta Airline, 
   Inc., and Allianz, Inc. 
2.  On October 30, 2025, the court entered an Entry Order denying without 
   prejudice Plaintiff's IFP Application. Plaintiff was allowed until December 1, 
   2025, to either pay the civil case filing fee or refile her application with an 
   affidavit demonstrating her inability to pay the filing fee. (Doc. 3.) 
3.  On November 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed a corrected financial affidavit in support 
   of her IFP Application. (Doc. 4.) The document is partially illegible and 
   partially incomplete. It appears to claim a Saint Bernard as a dependent. The 
   District of Maine has warned Ms. Byrne that this is impermissible. Byrne v. 
   Ally Fin. Inc.,
2024 WL 1172781
, at *1 (D. Me. Mar. 18, 2024). 
A court is authorized to permit a litigant to proceed IFP if the party is “unable to 
pay” the standard fee for commencing an action.
28 U.S.C. § 1915
(a)(1). Thus, when a 
plaintiff seeks leave to proceed IFP, the court must determine whether he or she has 
demonstrated sufficient economic need to proceed without prepaying, in full, the required 
$405.00 filing fee. The purpose of the IFP statute is to ensure that indigent persons have 
equal access to the judicial system. The statute excuses from prepayment of filing fees 
any person who submits an affidavit “that the person is unable to pay such fees or give 
security therefor.” Jd. It is not necessary for a litigant to show that he or she is “absolutely 

destitute” to obtain the benefits of the statute. Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,
335 U.S. 331, 339
 (1948). It is instead sufficient for the litigant to demonstrate that 
paying court costs would deprive him or her of the “necessities of life.” Jd.; see also 
Potnick v. E. State Hosp.,
701 F.2d 243, 244
 (2d Cir. 1983) (“[N]o party must be made to 
choose between abandoning a  potentially meritorious claim or foregoing the necessities 
of life.”). 
Plaintiff's first financial affidavit in support of her IFP application indicated that 
she is employed by JLouise Elizabeth; however, she does not receive a salary or wages. 
Although she checked the “No” box for all questions regarding sources of income, she 
wrote in that she receives “SS $1,000 per month[,]” which the court construed as a Social 
Security benefit. See Doc. 3 at 2. Plaintiff also averred that she did not have any cash; 
money in a checking or savings account; or any real estate, stocks, bonds, notes, or other 
valuable property except a Jeep worth $20,000. She failed to list her monthly expenses as 
required by the IFP Application, instead stating “$2,000—food, gas, etc.” (Doc. 1-1 at 2.) 
She did not list any dependents. Based on these averments, the court determined: 
“Plaintiff's application is incomplete and insufficient to establish an entitlement to 
proceed IFP.” (Doc. 3 at 2) (citing Byrne,
2024 WL 1172781
, at *1). 
Plaintiff timely filed a corrected financial affidavit in support of her IFP 
Application. The majority of the averments are illegible. Plaintiff checked the “Yes” box 
for other sources of income and typed Social Security Disability without indicating an 
amount received during the past twelve months as required. Plaintiff did not check the 
“Yes” or “No” box in response to the question whether she owns any cash or has money 
in a checking or savings account but, following the direction “If the answer is Yes, state 
the total value of the items owned[,]” she typed in 700.00. See Doc. 4 at 2. The remainder 
of her declarations are illegible. 
Without the necessary information, the court cannot perform the required review 
of her JFP application. From what the court can discern, it appears that Plaintiff has some 
amount of regular income and savings in excess of the filing fee. Based on this 
information, the court cannot find that paying the filing fee would jeopardize Plaintiff's 
ability to provide herself the necessities of life. Cf Chapman v. Merchandise Mart 

Props.,
2007 WL 922258
, at *2 (D. Vt. Mar. 23, 2007) (denying IFP status where 
plaintiff's “monthly expenses roughly equal[ed] her income” and she had $1,000 in 
savings because she had “regular employment and savings well in excess of the filing 
fee”). In its current state, Plaintiffs financial affidavit does not demonstrate her inability 
to pay the filing fee. 
Because the court cannot discern from Plaintiff's filing that she meets the 
requirements of
28 U.S.C. § 1915
(a)(1), her renewed application for leave to proceed IFP 
(Doc. 4) is DENIED. 
                          CONCLUSION 
For the reasons discussed above, and having conducted the review required under
28 U.S.C. § 1915
(a)(1), Plaintiff's renewed application to proceed in forma pauperis 
(Doc. 4) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may pay the filing fee of 
$405.00 or refile the application with an affidavit demonstrating her inability to pay the 
filing fee.! The Clerk’s Office is respectfully requested to send Plaintiff a blank Affidavit 
in Support of Application to Proceed IFP form. Should Plaintiff fail to pay the filing fee 
or to refile a complete financial affidavit demonstrating her inability to pay the 
filing on or before December 12, 2025, this case shall be dismissed without 
prejudice. 
The court hereby certifies that under
28 U.S.C. § 1915
(a)(3) any appeal would not 
be taken in good faith. 
SO ORDERED. 
Dated at Burlington, in the District of Vermont, this we day of November, 2025. 

                                          Christina Reiss, Chief Judge 
                                          United States District Court 

' Plaintiff is reminded that should she wish to add additional defendants to her action, and either 
pays the filing fee or refiles her IFP application, she may also file an updated proposed 
Complaint for the court’s review under
28 U.S.C. § 1915
(e)(2)(B). See Doc. 3 at 3 n.3.