Elmore v. Rankins

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
HUBERT PAUL ELMORE, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-26-232-G
)
CHRIS RANKINS, 	)
)
Respondent. 	)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner, a pro se state prisoner, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1). He has also filed an Application for Leave to Proceed
In Forma Pauperis (“IFP,” without prepaying fees or costs). 	(Doc. 6). 	United States
District Judge Charles B. Goodwin referred the matter to the undersigned Magistrate Judge
for initial proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), (C). (Doc. 3).
The filing fee for a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is $5.00. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a district court has discretion to permit the commencement of
an action without prepayment of fees or security therefor. See Grimes v. TCF Bank, 769
F. App’x 659, 660 (10th Cir. 2019) (reviewing a district court order denying an IFP
application for an abuse of discretion); Cabrera v. Horgas, 1999 WL 241783, at *1 (10th
Cir. 1999) (“The decision to grant or deny in forma pauperis status under § 1915 lies within
the sound discretion of the trial court.”).
Proceeding IFP “in a civil case is a privilege, not a right – fundamental or
otherwise.” White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1233 (10th Cir. 1998). “[T]o succeed on
Case 5:26-cv-00232-G Document 8 Filed 03/03/26 Page 1 of 3

2
a motion to proceed IFP, the movant must show a financial inability to pay the required
filing fees.” 	Lister v. Dep’t of the Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005). The
court evaluates “an application to proceed [IFP] . . . in light of the applicant’s present
financial status.” Scherer v. Kansas, 263 F. App’x 667, 669 (10th Cir. 2008).
Having 	reviewed 	the 	Application, 	the 	undersigned 	finds 	that 	Petitioner 	has
sufficient financial resources to pay the filing fee, as he currently has $6.43 in his
institutional account, and the average monthly deposits to his institutional account for the
six-month period immediately preceding the filing of his Petition were $76.93. (Doc. 6, at
3-4). Because he does not qualify for authorization to proceed without prepayment of the
filing fee, Petitioner’s Application should be DENIED, and he should be required to pay
the full filing fee for this action to proceed.
RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that the court DENY
Petitioner’s Application for Leave to Proceed IFP (Doc. 6). 	The undersigned further
recommends that if Petitioner does not pay the $5.00 filing fee in full to the Clerk of the
Court within 21 days of any order adopting this Report and Recommendation, that this
action be dismissed without prejudice to the refiling. LCvR 3.3(e).
Petitioner is advised of his right to file an objection to this Report and
Recommendation with the Clerk of this Court by March 24, 2026, in accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	Failure to make timely objection to
this Report and Recommendation waives his right to appellate review of both factual and
Case 5:26-cv-00232-G Document 8 Filed 03/03/26 Page 2 of 3

3
legal issues contained herein. 	See Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir.
1991).
This Report and Recommendation disposes of all issues and terminates the referral
to the undersigned Magistrate Judge unless and until the matter is re-referred.
ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00232-G Document 8 Filed 03/03/26 Page 3 of 3