Wilkening v. US Department of Education
- Donovan Frank
- 0:23-cv-03143
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Wilkening v. U.S. Department of Education, Magistrate Judge Leung denied Wilkening’s fee-waiver application without prejudice, allowing 21 days to reapply or pay.
Erin Wilkening must either pay the filing fee or submit a new fee-waiver application within 21 days; the defendants’ underlying dispute was not decided.
What happened
In Wilkening v. U.S. Department of Education, Erin Wilkening asked to proceed without paying the case’s filing fees. The court said it could not determine from her application that paying would cause serious financial hardship.
Wilkening reported no income and no expenses during the previous year, without explaining how she was meeting her basic needs. The application was also unsigned, which violated the filing-signature requirement discussed by the court.
Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung denied the application without prejudice. Within 21 days, Wilkening must either pay the filing fee or submit a new fee-waiver application; otherwise, the court will recommend dismissing the case for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- Wilkening v. US Department of Education · No. 0:23-cv-03143
- Donovan Frank
- Nov. 1, 2023
Background
Erin Wilkening applied to proceed without prepaying the filing fee, a request commonly called an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). The order addresses only that application and does not decide the claims against the defendants.
Reasons for the ruling
The court explained that an applicant must show that paying the costs of the case would cause undue hardship or deprive the applicant of life’s necessities. Wilkening reported no income during the previous 12 months and no expenses at all. The court stated that an application need not list finances exactly to the penny, but it must make a good-faith effort to explain the applicant’s financial situation. Without further explanation, the court found Wilkening’s application difficult to credit.
The application was also unsigned. The court cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a), which requires a filing to be signed by an attorney of record or, when a party is unrepresented, by that party personally. The court stated that an unsigned filing must be struck unless the omission is promptly corrected after being brought to the party’s attention.
The court’s footnote also states that mail sent to Wilkening’s address of record was returned as undeliverable and reminds her that she must keep the court informed of her current address.
Order
The court denied Wilkening’s IFP application without prejudice, meaning she may submit another application. The order gives her 21 days from the order’s date to either pay the filing fee or submit a new IFP application. If she does neither, the court will recommend dismissing the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The court did not dismiss the action in this order. The order was signed by Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.