BRIAN K. EFPS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BRIAN K. EFPS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff commenced the above-captioned case pro se and requested permission to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (Doc. no. 2.) Upon review of the initial IFP motion, the Court determined Plaintiff had not provided complete answers to all of the questions on the IFP form, or had provided inconsistent answers, and therefore, on August 19, 2021, directed her to file a new IFP motion. (See doc. no. 6.) The new IFP motion is now before the Court for review. (Doc. no. 7.)
Plaintiff submitted two renewed IFP motions in response to the Court's August 19th Order. (Doc. nos. 7, 9.) Both motions contain the same financial information. Although the recommendation to deny IFP status applies to both motions, for ease of reference, the Court cites to the first motion, (doc. no. 7).
Plaintiff reports that she has been employed for two years with a public school system in North Carolina, earning $3, 800.00 per month. (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff lists her total monthly bills as $2, 475.00, which is $1, 325.00 less than her stated monthly income for the past two years. Those numbers suggest approximately $16, 000 in unaccounted for funds in the past year. Yet Plaintiff professes no savings or cash on hand. After the Court pointed out there was no readily apparent explanation on her first IFP motion for how Plaintiff intended to pay her bills, Plaintiff now acknowledges she has three “gainfully employed” sons who are paying her expenses. (Id. at 7.) Also inconsistent with Plaintiff's professed lack of any funds on hand is her routine use of overnight express mail costing over $26.00. (See doc. no. 1, p. 25; doc. no. 7, p. 8.)
Leave to proceed IFP is discretionary with the Court, and that discretion is to be exercised so as not to deny a party access to the courts solely on account of financial standing. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). Although poverty sufficient to qualify under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 does not require penniless destitution, proceeding IFP is a privilege, not a right. See Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 198 (1993). Indeed, “a litigant whose filing fees and court costs are assumed by the public . . . lacks an economic incentive to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). Plaintiff has commenced three prior cases in this Court but has never paid a filing fee. All three of those cases were remanded or dismissed prior to service. DGBJSH Family Props., LLC v. Reaves, CV 119-113 (S.D. Ga. June 18, 2019) (improperly removed to federal court); State of Ga., Super. Ct. v. Reaves, et al., CV 119-070 (S.D. Ga. May 14, 2019) (improperly removed to federal court); Reaves v. Medlin, CV 119-029 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 18. 2019) (dismissed for failure to state a claim).
Here, given the financial information in the record, including the availability of resources to pay all of Plaintiff's expenses, as well as the discrepancies outlined above concerning a professed lack of cash on hand or savings, the Court REPORTS and RECOMMENDS Plaintiffs renewed motions to proceed IFP be DENIED (doc. nos. 7, 9), and Plaintiff be DIRECTED to pay the full filing fee if she intends to pursue her complaint. Should the District Judge adopt this recommendation and Plaintiff fail to pay the filing fee within twenty-one days after that final action, the case should be DISMISSED without prejudice and CLOSED. Of course, Plaintiff may choose to pay the $402.00 now, and the case will proceed without further delay.
SO REPORTED and RECOMMENDED.