Gonzalez v. Basu

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
NATALIE GONZALEZ, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-26-869-PRW
)
SHANTONU BASU, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP). Doc. 2.1 United States District Judge Patrick R. Wyrick
referred the IFP motion to the undersigned Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B), (C). Doc. 3.
I. 	Discussion.
The filing fee in civil cases is $405.00.2 A court has discretion under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(a) in deciding whether to grant a civil litigant permission to
proceed IFP. Lister v. Dep’t of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005);
see also Grimes v. TCF Bank, 769 F. App’x 659, 660 (10th Cir. 2019) (reviewing
1 	Citations to a court document are to its electronic case filing designation
and pagination. Except for capitalization, quotations are verbatim unless
otherwise indicated.
2 	The filing fee is $350.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). In addition, an
administrative fee of $55.00 must be paid. See Judicial Conf. Sched. of Fees,
Dist. Ct. Misc. Fee Sched. ¶ 14.
Case 5:26-cv-00869-PRW Document 4 Filed 04/22/26 Page 1 of 4

2
a district court order denying an in forma pauperis application for an abuse of
discretion). “Section 1915(a) applies to all persons applying for [in forma
pauperis] status, and not just to prisoners.” Lister, 408 F.3d at 1312.
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). To
succeed on a motion to proceed IFP, the movant must show a financial inability
to pay the required filing fees. Lister, 408 F.3d at 1312. 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) (internal
citations omitted).
Turning to the first factor, Plaintiff’s complaint is one page, in which she
complains that “Defendant engaged in ex parte communication,” and that she
“demands $100,000” as compensation. Doc. 1, at 1.3 The Court finds Plaintiff’s
action 	to 	be 	likely 	frivolous 	as 	the 	complaint 	contains 	no 	other 	factual
allegations.
3 	Plaintiff is proceeding pro se.
Case 5:26-cv-00869-PRW Document 4 Filed 04/22/26 Page 2 of 4

3
As to the second factor, Plaintiff is not a prisoner. So the undersigned
does not find that the special concerns attendant to prisoner cases apply.
For the final factor, Plaintiff states she has $50.00 in a checking or
savings account and receives $930.00 in income per month. Doc. 2, at 1-2. Her
monthly expenses are $800.00, but she does not describe what those expenses
are. Id. at 2. She states she has no debt and no dependents. Id. at 2.
Considering all these factors, Plaintiff has not shown a financial inability
to pay the required fee. She is not a prisoner. Her complaint is likely frivolous.
She is not burdened by financial obligations as her monthly expenses are not
more than her monthly income. Plaintiff is able to pay both for the necessities
of life and for those lawsuits that she deems important and that her allegation
of poverty, without more, does not accurately characterize her situation.
“While this Court does not suggest that [Plaintiff] is wealthy or has lots
of money to spend,” the Court finds Plaintiff could spend her discretionary
funds on filing fees if she desires. Lewis v. Ctr. Mkt., 2009, WL 5217343, at *3
(D.N.M. Oct. 29, 2009), aff’d, 378 F. App’x 780 (10th Cir. 2010). And Plaintiff
“has given [the Court] no indication” that such a determination is incorrect.
Burns v. United States, 345 F. App’x 328, 329 (10th Cir. 2009).
II. 	Recommendations.
Case 5:26-cv-00869-PRW Document 4 Filed 04/22/26 Page 3 of 4

4
The undersigned recommends the Court deny Plaintiff’s IFP motion.
Doc. 2. The undersigned further recommends that the Court dismiss this action
without prejudice to refiling if Plaintiff does not pay the $405.00 filing fee in
full to the Clerk of the Court within twenty-one days of any order adopting this
Report and Recommendation. See LCvR3.3(e).
The undersigned advises Plaintiff of her right to object to this Report and
Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Any
such objection must be filed with the Clerk of the Court on or before May 13,
2026. The Court further advises Plaintiff that failure to make timely objection
to this Report and Recommendation waives his right to appellate review of the
factual and legal issues addressed herein. 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 in the captioned matter.
ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-00869-PRW Document 4 Filed 04/22/26 Page 4 of 4