Cox v. Commissioner Of Department of Human Services
- John Tunheim
- 0:24-cv-01683
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Cox v. Commissioner of Department of Human Services, Judge Micko denied Cox’s fee-waiver application but allowed 20 days to pay the filing fee.
Samuel I. Cox must pay the $405 filing fee within 20 days to continue the action; the defendants were not subjected to a merits ruling in this order.
What happened
In Cox v. Commissioner of Department of Human Services, Samuel I. Cox claimed that Department of Human Services officials violated his constitutional rights by asking about the source of money orders he received by mail. He asked to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court questioned Cox’s statement that he had received no money from any source during the previous 12 months because his complaint referred to money orders from family. The court had given him a chance to submit a corrected application, but he did not respond.
Judge Micko denied Cox’s application to proceed without paying the fee. The court gave Cox 20 days to pay the full $405 filing fee; otherwise, it warned that it would recommend dismissing the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.
The detailed version
- Cox v. Commissioner Of Department of Human Services · No. 0:24-cv-01683
- John Tunheim
- June 20, 2024
Background
Samuel I. Cox, identified as a client at the Minnesota Sex Offender Treatment Program, filed a civil complaint against the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services and other named and unnamed defendants. He alleged that the defendants violated his constitutional rights by asking him on May 1, 2024, about the source of money orders he had been receiving in the mail.
Cox did not pay the $405 filing fee. Instead, he applied to proceed without paying it, a status commonly called in forma pauperis. The court previously ordered him to file a complete and signed application addressing concerns identified by the court and warned that failing to do so would result in denial of the application. Cox did not respond by the deadline.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that the central question for eligibility to proceed without paying the fee is whether the applicant can afford the costs without undue hardship or deprivation of life’s necessities. Cox’s application stated that he had received no money from any source during the prior 12 months. But his complaint stated that defendants had questioned him about money orders he had recently received from family.
The court found that it could not determine that Cox had accurately disclosed his income and other financial resources. It also noted that Cox did not use the opportunity to resubmit his application and clarify the apparent inconsistency. The court therefore could not conclude that he was truly unable to pay the filing fee.
Ruling
Judge Douglas L. Micko denied Cox’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee. The order also required Cox to pay the full $405 fee within 20 days after the order’s date. If he pays within that period, the action will be allowed to proceed as a litigant who paid the fee. If he does not pay, the court warned that it will recommend dismissal of the action without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The order did not decide the merits of Cox’s constitutional claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.