Bell v. Iozzo

Background

Renzer Bell filed this action against Marc F. Iozzo, Ogden Lincoln, Inc., and Westmont Lincoln, LLC, invoking the court’s diversity jurisdiction. Bell was representing himself and had asked to proceed without prepaying the filing fee. The court granted that request on December 27, 2022.

The court noted that Bell had filed approximately two dozen actions during the preceding decade, most under the statute allowing litigants to proceed without prepaying filing fees. In an earlier related proceeding, another judge revoked Bell’s fee-waiver status and dismissed the case after finding that his allegation of poverty was untrue. That earlier order discussed property-tax records showing that Bell was the trustee of two trusts holding two Florida homes, valued in those records at $151,046 and $43,095. The earlier court found that Bell had not disclosed those properties in his financial application, although it dismissed that action without prejudice because the record did not establish his subjective intent with sufficient certainty.

Court’s analysis

The statute governing fee waivers requires dismissal when a court determines that a plaintiff’s allegation of poverty is untrue. The court explained that minor inaccuracies or good-faith mistakes do not necessarily require dismissal, but that concealing or misrepresenting assets in bad faith to obtain fee-waiver status can justify dismissal. A court may consider a litigant’s familiarity with the fee-waiver system and litigation history when evaluating bad faith.

In this action, Bell again did not identify the real-estate assets discussed in the earlier order when answering the financial application’s question about property or other valuable items, including property held in another person’s name. He instead wrote that he had judgments and accounts receivable. The court also noted that Bell again stated that he paid real-property taxes and alleged that he was a resident of Georgia, so the properties did not appear to be his residence. Based on these circumstances, the court said it appeared that Bell’s allegation of poverty was untrue and that he had misstated his assets. It further said the recent omission, after the earlier order had specifically discussed the apparent bad faith of omitting the information, appeared to justify finding that Bell acted in bad faith.

Order

The court ordered Bell to show cause by filing a written declaration within 30 days of June 12, 2023, explaining why his fee-waiver status should not be revoked because his allegation of poverty was untrue and he misstated his assets. The order did not itself revoke that status. It stated that the status would be revoked if Bell failed to respond or if his response did not provide a reason to avoid those findings.

The court directed Bell to submit the response to the Pro Se Intake Unit with the case number. No summons was to issue at that time. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-waiver status for purposes of an appeal from the order. The court noted that it might consider allowing Bell to continue the case after paying the filing fee, depending on his response.