Fatholah K. v. O'Malley
- John Docherty
- 0:23-cv-01013
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Fatholah K. v. Kijakazi, Judge Docherty denied Fatholah K.’s fee-waiver application without prejudice because the stated income did not show undue hardship.
Fatholah K.’s request to proceed without prepaying fees or costs was denied without prejudice; the order requires the stated fees and costs to be paid unless the court later grants a renewed application.
What happened
Fatholah K. v. Kijakazi concerns Fatholah K.’s request to proceed in court without paying filing fees and other costs upfront.
Fatholah K.’s application reported monthly income of $5,800 over the previous twelve months and no expected major income changes during the next twelve months. The court said the question was whether paying the fees would cause undue hardship or deprive Fatholah K. of life’s necessities.
Judge John F. Docherty denied the application without prejudice. He concluded that the reported income did not show that Fatholah K. would suffer undue hardship or lose life’s necessities by paying the case’s fees and costs.
The detailed version
- Fatholah K. v. O'Malley · No. 0:23-cv-01013
- John F. Docherty
- May 3, 2023
Background
Fatholah K. applied to proceed in the District of Minnesota without prepaying fees or costs. This type of application asks the court to allow a person to proceed without paying court-related costs upfront.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that the central question was whether the applicant could afford the costs of proceeding without undue hardship or deprivation of life’s necessities. Fatholah K.’s application reported $5,800 in monthly income for the past twelve months and anticipated no major changes in income during the next twelve months. Based on that income level, the court could not conclude that paying the fees and costs would cause undue hardship or deprive Fatholah K. of life’s necessities.
Ruling
Judge John F. Docherty denied Fatholah K.’s application without prejudice. The opinion does not decide the underlying Social Security dispute. Because the denial was without prejudice, the application was not permanently barred from being renewed.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.