Redway v. PF MPW SNF OPS LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
TAMIA REDWAY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-26-2653-PRW
)
PF MPW SNF OPS, LLC, )
)
Defendant. )
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Tamia Redway filed a complaint and a separate Application to Proceed in
District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (“Original Application”), Doc. 2. United
States District Judge Patrick R. Wyrick referred the Original Application to the
undersigned Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)-(C). Upon
order of the Court, Plaintiff filed a new Application to Proceed in District Court Without
Prepaying Fees or Costs (“Amended Application”), Doc. 5. After review, the undersigned
recommends that the Court deny the Amended Application.1
I. Discussion
The filing fee for a civil case in this Court is $405.00.2 Courts have discretion in
deciding whether to grant a civil litigant permission to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).
1 Because the Amended Application moots Plaintiff’s Original Application, the
undersigned considers only Plaintiff’s Amended Application and recommends denying the
Original Application, Doc. 2, as moot.
2 The total filing fee includes a base fee of $350.00 plus an administrative fee of $55.00.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); Judicial Conf. Sched. of Fees, Dist. Ct. Misc. Fee Sched. ¶ 14.
Case 5:26-cv-02653-PRW Document 6 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 5

2
28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); Lister v. Dep’t of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005).
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) (citation modified). To succeed
on an application to proceed IFP, the movant must show “a financial inability to pay the
required filing fees.” Lister, 408 F.3d at 1312.
A. Factors for consideration
Factors the Court may consider in exercising its discretion include “whether the
complaint is frivolous or malicious; whether the case concerns a prisoner, with special
concern placed on prisoner complaints; and the nature of the mandatory and discretionary
demands on the applicant’s financial resources.” Brewer v. City of Overland Park Police
Dep’t, 24 F. App’x 977, 979 (10th Cir. 2002) (citation modified). The undersigned has not
reviewed the complaint. Doc. 1; see Doc. 3 (referring only the Original Application). But
even assuming the complaint is not frivolous or malicious, the remaining factors weigh
against granting Plaintiff’s Amended Application. Plaintiff is not a prisoner, so the special
concerns attendant to prisoner cases do not apply.
As to the financial-resources factor, the Court may consider both income and assets.
See Lister, 408 F.3d at 1311 (noting that an applicant’s income, assets, and expenses are
relevant for consideration of an IFP application). With respect to income, the Court
considers the degree to which a plaintiff’s monthly income exceeds her monthly
obligations. See Scherer v. Kansas, 263 F. App’x 667, 669 (10th Cir. 2008) (affirming
denial of IFP status, in part, because the plaintiff’s “monthly income exceeded his monthly
obligations by several hundred dollars”). In doing so, the Court also considers whether a
Case 5:26-cv-02653-PRW Document 6 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 5

3
plaintiff’s monthly obligations are mandatory or discretionary. Brewer, 24 F. App’x at
979. And the Court considers a plaintiff’s household income. See, e.g., Freisinger o/b/o
A.A.F. v. Dudek, No. CIV-25-104-CMS, 2025 WL 913637, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 19,
2025) (explaining a court considers the “income and assets of persons who financially
support” a plaintiff applying to proceed IFP) (R&R), adopted, 2025 WL 909238 (W.D.
Okla. Mar. 25, 2025); Fridman v. City of New York, 195 F. Supp. 2d 534, 537 (S.D.N.Y.
2002) (“In assessing an application to proceed in forma pauperis, a court may consider the
resources that the applicant has or can get from those who ordinarily provide the applicant
with the necessities of life, such as from a spouse, parent, adult sibling or other next friend.”
(citation modified)); Zhu v. Countrywide Realty Co., 148 F. Supp. 2d 1154, 1156 (D. Kan.
2001) (“Courts have found that the income and assets of close family members are relevant
to a determination of indigency under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.” (citation modified)); Williams v.
Spencer, 455 F. Supp. 205, 208 (D. Md. 1978) (explaining that, in determining whether
litigants are unable to pay, the court should consider resources “they have or can get”
(quoting Adkins v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339-40 (1948)). Here,
because Plaintiff relies on her mother for financial support, the Court considers that
financial resource in assessing Plaintiff’s inability to pay the filing fee.
B. Plaintiff’s financial information
The undersigned has carefully considered Plaintiff’s income, assets, and expenses
as listed on her Amended Application. Plaintiff attests that her take-home pay is
unpredictable and varies according to the needs of her employer. Doc. 5 at 1; Doc. 5-1.
Based on the amounts of her take-home pay in September, her monthly income is
Case 5:26-cv-02653-PRW Document 6 Filed 10/13/26 Page 3 of 5

4
approximately $1,105.00. Plaintiff also attests that she relies on her mother for basic
necessities, including rent, utilities, groceries, food, and transportation. Doc. 5-1. Her
mother’s monthly income is approximately $4,000.00. Id.
Plaintiff states she has no assets. Doc. 5 at 2. Plaintiff attests that she has
approximately $2,900.00 in debt, but does not include any loan payments in her monthly
obligations. Id.; Doc. 5-1. Her monthly expenses total approximately $2,690.00. Doc. 5
at 2; Doc. 5-1.
Based on the information provided in the Amended Application, the undersigned
recommends the Court deny the Amended Application. Including her mother’s income,
Plaintiff reports monthly take-home pay that exceeds her monthly expenses by more than
$2,415.00. And even without Plaintiff’s variable income, her mother’s income exceeds
Plaintiff’s monthly expenses by approximately $1,300.00. Though Plaintiff indicates her
mother “also supports [her] brother and sister,” Plaintiff does not include any of her
mother’s expenses for the Court’s consideration. Doc. 5-1. As such, based on the
information before the Court, the undersigned finds Plaintiff has not shown “a financial
inability to pay the required filing fees.” Lister, 408 F.3d at 1312; see also Raynor v. Wentz,
357 F. App’x 968, 969 (10th Cir. 2009) (denying a motion to proceed IFP when “the
documentation Plaintiff has provided does not indicate an inability to pay the required
filing fee”).
II. Recommendation and Notice of Right to Object
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends that the Court DENY
Plaintiff’s Amended Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or
Case 5:26-cv-02653-PRW Document 6 Filed 10/13/26 Page 4 of 5

5
Costs, Doc. 5. The undersigned further recommends that if Plaintiff does not pay the
$405.00 filing fee in full to the Clerk of Court within 21 days of any order adopting this
Report and Recommendation, this action be dismissed without prejudice to refiling,
pursuant to Local Civil Rule 3.3(e).
Plaintiff is advised of her right to object to this Report and Recommendation. See
28 U.S.C. § 636. Any objection must be filed with the Clerk of Court not later than
November 3, 2026. See id. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Failure to object timely
waives the right to appellate review of the factual and legal issues addressed in this Report
and Recommendation. See Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).
This Report and Recommendation disposes of all issues referred to the undersigned
Magistrate Judge in this matter.
ENTERED this 13th day of October, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-02653-PRW Document 6 Filed 10/13/26 Page 5 of 5