Daramola v. Dungarvin Incorporated, Minnesota

Background

Plaintiff Femi Joseph Daramola filed an application to proceed in the action without prepaying fees or costs. The court considered whether he had shown that paying the filing fee would cause undue hardship or deprive him of life’s necessities.

Reasons for the ruling

The court identified at least two problems with the application. First, Daramola answered “N/A” to every substantive question on the court’s financial-information form. The court said that anyone seeking this privilege must make a good-faith effort to provide the requested information.

Second, the court concluded that some of the answers appeared inconsistent with the complaint. The application suggested that Daramola had no income during the previous 12 months and no employment history during the previous two years, while the complaint stated that he had been employed between February 2022 and March 2023. The court also found it difficult to credit his statement that he had no average monthly expenses.

Order

The court denied Daramola’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs without prejudice. This means the denial did not prevent him from filing a new application. The court required him to either pay the filing fee or submit a new application by March 27, 2024. If he did neither, the court said it might recommend dismissing the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The court ordered the clerk to send Daramola a blank Form AO 239 application.

Judge Dulce J. Foster signed the order as a United States magistrate judge. The supplied case metadata identifies Katherine Menendez as the judge, but the opinion text is signed by Dulce J. Foster; this summary uses the judge identified by the signature.