Askins v. Geico Insurance Agency LLC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ZACKERY J. ASKINS, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-25-1049-SLP
)
GEICO INSURANCE AGENCY LLC, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
O R D E R
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 5] of Magistrate
Judge Amanda L. Maxfield, recommending denial of Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in
In Forma Pauperis [Doc. No. 2] based on his failure to comply with the Court’s deficiency
order [Doc. No. 4]. See R&R [Doc. No. 5] at 3. The deficiency order noted that Plaintiff’s
trust fund account statement was dated two months before he filed this action and did not
include statements from all facilities where he was housed during the relevant six-month
period. See [Doc. No. 4]. Plaintiff failed to cure the deficiencies by the deadline, and the
Magistrate Judge therefore issued the R&R recommending denial. The R&R advised
Plaintiff that objections were due by November 12, 2025, and that failure to object would
waive appellate review of the factual and legal findings addressed in the R&R.
On November 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Response [Doc. No. 6] and second
Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (the “Amended Application”) [Doc.
No. 7], which the Court construes as a response and objection to the R&R. Upon de novo
review, Plaintiff’s Amended Application remains deficient. Although Plaintiff submitted
Case 5:25-cv-01049-SLP Document 8 Filed 11/05/25 Page 1 of 3

2
a more recent account statement dated October 16, 2025 [Doc. No. 7-1] at 2, Plaintiff again
failed to include a statement from Springfield MCFP—a facility at which he was housed
during the relevant six-month period—as ordered by the Magistrate Judge.1 [Doc. No. 4].
Deficiencies aside, Plaintiff’s Amended Application shows he does not qualify for
in forma pauperis status. Plaintiff submitted a certified statement reflecting an average
monthly balance of $1,310.10 and average monthly deposits of $551.69 over the past six
months [Doc. No. 7 at 3–4], and a current balance of $2,523.26 as of October 20, 2025.
Plaintiff, therefore, has sufficient funds to prepay the $405.00 filing fee for this proceeding.
Because Plaintiff has not shown that he qualifies for authorization to proceed without
prepayment of the filing fee, Plaintiff’s Application and Amended Application must be
denied. See Lister v. Dep’t of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005) (noting that
“to succeed on a motion to proceed [in forma pauperis], the movant must show a financial
inability to pay the required filing fees”); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).
1 In the past four months, Plaintiff has filed six actions in this District. See Askins v. Graves, No.
CIV-25-753-PRW (W.D. Okla. July 7, 2025); Askins v. Hartson, No. CIV-25-759-JD (W.D. Okla.
July 10, 2025); Askins v. Piranian, No. CIV-25-1002-D (W.D. Okla. Sept. 4, 2025); Askins v.
Geico Insurance Agency LLC, No. CIV-25-1049-SLP (W.D. Okla. Sept. 12, 2025); Askins v.
United States of America et al, No. CIV-25-1159-JD (W.D. Okla. Oct. 6, 2025); Askins v. Heck,
No. 25-CIV-1302-PRW (W.D. Okla. Nov. 3, 2025).
As the Magistrate Judge noted, Plaintiff’s prior IFP Application in Askins v. Hartson included a
report dated April 29, 2025, identifying Springfield MCFP as his institution at that time. See [Doc.
No. 2-1]. Accordingly, a statement from that facility is required. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) (requiring
a certified copy of the trust fund statement for the 6-month period immediately proceeding the
filing of the complaint from every facility the prisoner is or was confined).
Case 5:25-cv-01049-SLP Document 8 Filed 11/05/25 Page 2 of 3

3
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 5]
of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED, and Plaintiff’s Application and Amended
Application to Proceed in In Forma Pauperis [Doc. Nos. 2 and 7] are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall pay the $405.00 filing fee on or
before November 26, 2025. Plaintiff is advised that if he fails to timely pay the filing fee,
this action shall be dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 5 th day of November, 2025.
Case 5:25-cv-01049-SLP Document 8 Filed 11/05/25 Page 3 of 3