Case Name in Social Security Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 26-CV-81393-STRAUSS
MICHAEL GELLERT,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant.
__________________________________/
ORDER ON MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District
Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs [DE 3] (the “IFP Motion”). However, the IFP Motion
contains contradictory and therefore insufficient information. Accordingly, the IFP Motion will be
denied without prejudice.
In the IFP Motion, Plaintiff seeks to proceed without prepaying fees and costs. See [DE 3]
at 1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court may, upon a finding of indigency, authorize the
commencement of an action without requiring the prepayment of fees or security. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a)(1). The granting of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis is discretionary. Pace v.
Evans, 709 F.2d 1428, 1429 (11th Cir. 1983). “When considering a motion filed under Section
1915(a), ‘[t]he only determination to be made by the court . . . is whether the statements in the
affidavit satisfy the requirement of poverty.’” Raftery v. Vt. Student Assistance Corp., 2016 WL
11579801, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 17, 2016) (quoting Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d
1305, 1307 (11th Cir. 2004)). “[A]n affidavit will be held sufficient if it represents that the litigant,
because of his poverty, is unable to pay for the court fees and costs, and to support and provide
necessities for himself and his dependents.” Martinez, 364 F.3d at 1307. A plaintiff, however, need
Case 9:26-cv-81393-JMS Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2026 Page 1 of 3

2
not be “absolutely destitute.” Id. Accordingly, a court must compare “the applicant’s assets and
liabilities in order to determine whether he has satisfied the poverty requirement.” Thomas v.
Chattahoochee Jud. Cir., 574 F. App’x 916, 917 (11th Cir. 2014).
Here, the Court will deny the IFP Motion without prejudice based on the contradictory
information provided. The following examples are illustrative of the inconsistencies. First, the IFP
Motion indicates that Plaintiff has a “[t]otal monthly income” of $0.00 but separately lists an
average monthly income of $11,000 over the last year ($6,500 from employment and $4,500 from
retirement). See [DE 3] at 1-2; see also id. at 5 (identifying “ss check” as one source of income).
Second, Plaintiff states that he is disabled and unable to work but elsewhere lists an average
monthly income from his employment, along with employers for 2025 and 2026, without
explaining when he became disabled. Id. at 1-2, 5. Third, Plaintiff includes a variety of average
monthly expenses (e.g., $800 for rent or home-mortgage payment, $200 for utilities, $1,000 for
home maintenance, and $6,500 for medical and dental expenses) but only lists $1,900 for total
monthly expenses. Id. at 4-5. Fourth, Plaintiff identifies a motor vehicle as an asset but does not
indicate that he has any transportation expenses. Id. at 3-4. Fifth, many of the boxes include a
handwritten figure along with a typed figure that is different from the handwritten figure, making
it difficult to discern what the correct entry is supposed to be.1 See generally id.
Still, the Court is cognizant of Plaintiff’s explanation that he is disabled, unable to work
due to injuries, and seemingly has very limited funds. See id. at 5. None of the above is meant to
suggest that Plaintiff cannot show indigency for purposes of proceeding in forma pauperis. Instead,
1 The Court has assumed for purposes of this order that the handwritten figures are the correct
ones. Yet the Court cannot definitively rely on those figures without further explanation.
Case 9:26-cv-81393-JMS Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2026 Page 2 of 3

3
the Court’s analysis is only meant to explain why the Court cannot grant the IFP Motion in its
current form.
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that:
1. 	Plaintiff’s IFP Motion [DE 3] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
2. 	On or before October 28, 2026, Plaintiff shall either (1) pay the filing fee or (2)
file a renewed IFP Motion that corrects the above deficiencies and more adequately explains
Plaintiff’s financial condition. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of this action without
further notice.
DONE AND ORDERED in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, this 14th day of October 2026.
Case 9:26-cv-81393-JMS Document 4 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2026 Page 3 of 3