ShabazzAbenzur Bey v. Chicory Court Madison III LP, No. 3:2021cv00066 - Document 12 (N.D. Tex. 2021)
Court Description: Order Accepting 7 Findings and Recommendations re: 4 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Daniyel Shabazz Abenzur Bey. The plaintiff's insufficient motion to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby DENIED. The Court will dismiss the plaintiffs complaint in the future if he fails to either pay the $402.00 filing fee or file a properly supported motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Ordered by Judge Brantley Starr on 2/22/2021) (ndt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
ShabazzAbenzur Bey v. Chicory Court Madison III LP Doc. 12 Case 3:21-cv-00066-X-BT Document 12 Filed 02/22/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID 58 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION DANIYEL SHABAZZ ABENZUR BEY, Plaintiff, v. CHICORY COURT MADISON III LP, Defendant. § § § § § § § § § § § Civil Action No. 3:21-CV-66-X-BT ORDER Before the Court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge concerning this case. [Doc. No. 7]. The plaintiff timely objected, 1 so the Court reviews the Magistrate Judge’s findings de novo. The Magistrate Judge properly concluded that the plaintiff’s failure to sign the affidavit needed to support his motion to proceed in forma pauperis 2 requires denial of the motion. The plaintiff did not deny in his objection that he failed to sign this affidavit, but instead argued that he did not need to do so for various reasons. None are persuasive. Based on his objection, the plaintiff appears confused about the meaning of several legal terms and the extent of his own civil rights. The Court is happy to clarify 1 Doc. No. 10. 2 The Latin phrase in forma pauperis, as the Magistrate Judge explained, is a term that refers to a court proceeding undertaken by a litigant who avers that he lacks the funds necessary to pay certain court fees. It does not mean that every plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is poor, or a prisoner. Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:21-cv-00066-X-BT Document 12 Filed 02/22/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID 59 both. First, the requirement of an affidavit to proceed in forma pauperis is not limited to prisoners. 3 Second, the affidavit requirement does not compel the plaintiff to reveal any financial information because the plaintiff is free to choose not to proceed in forma pauperis. Therefore, the affidavit requirement does not violate the Fourth or Fifth Amendment. Third and finally, the plaintiff’s statement that the Court must respond to his objection by a certain deadline is not binding. Parties to a lawsuit do not act as their own judge. The Court alone may set and alter deadlines upon a motion from either party. After making an independent review of the pleadings, files and records in this case, and the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the Court finds them correct. It is therefore ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge are accepted. The plaintiff’s insufficient motion to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby DENIED. The Court will dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint in the future if he fails to either pay the $402.00 filing fee or file a properly supported motion to proceed in forma pauperis. IT IS SO ORDERED this 22nd day of February, 2021. ____________________________________ BRANTLEY STARR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3 See Hayes v. Scott, 116 F.3d 137, 140 (5th Cir. 1997) (holding that the affidavit requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) applies to both prisoners and non-prisoners).
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
