Bowens v. City of Minneapolis
Shomari Bowens v. City of Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Rashida Hill, and Michael Wolf, and John and Jane Doe 1–10
- Shannon Elkins
- 0:26-cv-00268
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
Judge Elkins denied Bowens v. Minneapolis’s fee-waiver application without prejudice and gave Bowens 21 days to pay or reapply.
The ruling directly affects Shomari Bowens’s ability to proceed without paying the filing fee. It does not decide his claims against the City of Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Rashida Hill, Michael Wolf, or the John and Jane Doe defendants.
What happened
In Shomari Bowens v. City of Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Rashida Hill, Michael Wolf, and John and Jane Doe 1–10, Bowens asked to proceed without paying the filing fee.
Bowens reported monthly income of $3,000, described it as inconsistent and unreliable, and reported no dependents. The court found that the information provided did not show that requiring the filing fee would cause serious hardship or deprive him of basic necessities.
The court denied the application without prejudice. Judge Shannon G. Elkins ordered Bowens, within 21 days, either to pay the filing fee or submit a new application; otherwise, the court will recommend dismissing the case for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- Bowens v. City of Minneapolis · No. 0:26-cv-00268
- Shannon G. Elkins
- Jan. 15, 2026
Background
The court considered Plaintiff Shomari Bowens’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee, commonly called an application to proceed in forma pauperis, along with his supporting declaration.
Reasoning
The court explained that the central question is whether the applicant can afford the costs of proceeding without undue hardship or deprivation of life’s necessities. Bowens reported receiving $3,000 per month in income. Although he stated that his income was inconsistent and unreliable, he reported no dependents. Based on the information provided, the court found that his income exceeded 200 percent of the federal poverty line for a one-person family in Minnesota. The court therefore could not find that requiring him to pay the filing fee would cause undue hardship or deprive him of life’s necessities.
Disposition
The court DENIED Bowens’s motion to proceed without paying the filing fee without prejudice. That means Bowens may submit a new application if he believes additional information would support it. The court ordered him, within 21 days of the order’s date, either to pay the action’s filing fee or submit a new application. If he does neither, the court will recommend dismissing the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The order did not decide the merits of Bowens’s claims against the defendants.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.