Mays v. Global Health Link
- Donovan Frank
- 0:25-cv-04676
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Mays v. Global Health Link, Magistrate Judge Foster denied Yolanda Mays's request to proceed without paying the $405 filing fee, finding her ~$46,000 income sufficient.
Pro se plaintiffs in the District of Minnesota who seek to have filing fees waived — particularly individuals earning around or above 300% of the federal poverty level — may find this ruling relevant to understanding how courts evaluate fee-waiver applications based on income.
What happened
In Mays v. Global Health Link (Case No. 25-cv-4676), Yolanda Mays filed a civil lawsuit against Global Health Link in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging workplace discrimination based on race, religion, and national origin under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Along with her lawsuit, Ms. Mays applied to proceed without paying the court's filing fee — a benefit available to people who cannot afford court costs without serious financial hardship.
The court reviewed Ms. Mays's financial information and found that she earns approximately $46,000 per year, which is nearly three times the federal poverty guideline for a single person in Minnesota. The court also noted that her income has consistently exceeded her expenses for roughly half a year. Although the $405 filing fee is not a trivial cost, the court concluded that Ms. Mays earns enough to cover it without suffering undue hardship or being unable to meet her basic needs.
Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster denied the application to waive the filing fee. Ms. Mays now has 21 days from December 29, 2025 to pay the $405 fee; if she does not pay, the case may be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute (meaning she could potentially refile). Judge Foster also advised Ms. Mays — who is representing herself — that if she proceeds, she should strongly consider amending her complaint to add specific factual allegations supporting her discrimination claims, since the current complaint lacks such details.
The detailed version
- Mays v. Global Health Link · No. 0:25-cv-04676
- Donovan Frank
- Dec. 29, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Yolanda Mays, who is representing herself (a "pro se" litigant), filed a civil lawsuit against Global Health Link in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Her complaint asserts claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., alleging discrimination on the basis of race, religion, and national origin.
Concurrently with her complaint, Ms. Mays filed an application to proceed "in forma pauperis" — a Latin phrase meaning the court allows a party to litigate without paying filing fees because they cannot afford to do so without undue hardship.
Legal Standard for Fee Waiver
The court applied the established standard: the central question is whether the applicant can afford court costs without undue hardship or deprivation of life's necessities. The court cited Ayers v. Tex. Dep't of Crim. Justice, 70 F.3d 1268 (5th Cir. 1995), and Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331 (1948).
Analysis of Ms. Mays's Financial Situation
According to her application, Ms. Mays earns approximately $46,000 per year and expects to continue earning at that level. The court noted that this income places her at nearly 300 percent of the federal poverty guideline for a single individual in Minnesota. The court further observed that her income has substantially exceeded her expenses for approximately half a year.
The court acknowledged that the $405 filing fee is not a negligible sum and that Ms. Mays alleged in her complaint that events from several months prior left her in a precarious financial position. Nevertheless, the court concluded that her income is sufficient to cover the costs of litigation without the risk of undue hardship or inability to meet basic needs.
Ruling on the Fee Waiver Application
Magistrate Judge Foster denied the application to proceed without paying the filing fee. Ms. Mays is ordered to pay the $405 filing fee within 21 days of December 29, 2025. If she fails to do so, the action may be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). A dismissal without prejudice would, as the court's own language indicates, leave open the possibility of refiling.
Advisory Remarks on the Complaint's Adequacy
Although not a ruling on the merits, the court provided an advisory note: if Ms. Mays pays the fee and proceeds, she should strongly consider amending her complaint. The court observed that the current complaint contains no factual allegations describing discriminatory or differential treatment on the basis of race, religion, or national origin, and that the complaint does not even identify Ms. Mays's race, religion, or national origin. The court advised that any amended complaint should include specific factual allegations that, if proved true, would establish a Title VII violation.
The court also directed Ms. Mays to resources for self-represented litigants on the court's website.
Summary of Disposition
- The application to proceed without paying the filing fee (ECF No. 2) is denied. - Ms. Mays must pay the $405 filing fee within 21 days, or the action may be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.