Rogers v. Johnson

Background

Angelina Rogers filed this action without a lawyer. On June 5, 2023, the court ordered her to submit a completed, signed amended complaint and either pay the $402 filing fee or submit a signed application to proceed without prepaying fees, commonly called an IFP application.

The court later determined that Rogers had submitted an IFP application, but the application was incomplete. She stated that she was not employed, answered “yes” to a question about having income from a business, profession, or self-employment, and answered “no” regarding other sources of income. She did not identify her income source or answer the application’s questions about expenses, property, dependents, or debts.

Court’s Analysis

Because the application did not provide enough information about Rogers’s income and expenses, the court could not determine whether she was unable to pay the filing fee. The court therefore did not rule on the merits of her request to proceed without prepaying fees.

Ruling

The court vacated in part the June 5, 2023, order insofar as it directed Rogers to submit an IFP application. It directed her, within 30 days of the order, either to pay the $402 filing fee or submit an amended IFP application addressing the deficiencies identified by the court. If the amended application is granted, Rogers may proceed without prepaying the filing fee.

Rogers must still submit a completed, signed amended complaint within 30 days, as required by the earlier order. The court stated that the action will be dismissed if she does not submit the amended complaint and either pay the fee or submit an amended IFP application within the allowed time. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied IFP status for purposes of an appeal.