CHANDLER

v.

UNITED STATES

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Appellant Zachary Chandler’s (“Appellant”) purported Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal, ECF No. (“Motion”).¹ The Court has carefully considered the Motion and the record in this case, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set forth below, Appellant’s Motion is denied. Fundamental to our system of justice is that the courthouse doors will not be closed to persons based on their inability to pay a filing fee. Congress has provided that a court “may authorize the commencement, prosecution, or defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal therein, without prepayment of fees . . . therefore, by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees. . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); see Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F. 3d 1305, 1306 n.1 (11th Cir. 2004) (interpreting statute to apply to all persons seeking to proceed in forma pauperis). Section 1915(a) requires a determination as to whether “the statements in the [applicant’s] affidavit satisfy the requirement of poverty.” Watson v. Ault, 525 F. 2d 886, 891 (5th

himself and dependents with the necessities of life.”). The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) poverty guidelines are central to an assessment of an applicant’s poverty. See Taylor v. Supreme Court of New Jersey, 261 F. App’x 399, 401 (3d Cir. 2008) (using HHS Guidelines as basis for section 1915 determination); Lewis v. Ctr. Mkt., 378 F. App’x 780, 784 (10th Cir. 2010) (affirming use of HHS guidelines); see also Annual Update of the HHS Poverty Guidelines, 85 Fed. Reg. 3060 (Jan. 17, 2020). Further, the section 1915 analysis requires “comparing the applicant’s assets and liabilities in order to determine whether he has satisfied the poverty requirement.” Thomas v. Chattahoochee Judicial Circuit, 574 F. App’x 916, 917 (11th Cir. 2014). Ultimately, permission to proceed in forma pauperis is committed to the sound

discretion of the Court. Camp v. Oliver, 798 F. 2d 434, 437 (11th Cir. 1986) (“[P]ermission to proceed [IFP] is committed to the sound discretion of the court.”). The Court is unable to determine from Appellant’s Motion whether he satisfies the requirements of poverty because the application is incomplete. In particular, Appellant has not submitted “an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such prisoner possesses that the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Thus, the Court cannot determine whether Appellant qualifies as indigent under § 1915 based on the Motion.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Appellant’s Motion, ECF No. , is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on October 21, 2020.

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: Counsel of Record Zachary Chandler 10700-104 Coleman I-USP United States Penitentiary Inmate Mail/Parcels Post Office Box 1033 Coleman, FL 33521