Reported / Citable
Background
Sandrine Nyarusalemu filed a pro se complaint against her former employer, Goodheart Specialty Brand Foods, purporting to assert a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She attached an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission right-to-sue letter that, according to the court, indicated she had timely filed discrimination charges with the EEOC.
Nyarusalemu also applied to proceed without prepaying fees or costs. Her application stated that she had $6,800 in checking or savings, earned $14 per hour, owned no valuable property, supported no dependents, and owed no debts. It did not identify her current employer, monthly take-home pay, or monthly expenses.
The Court’s Holding
U.S. Magistrate Judge Kelly G. Stephenson concluded that the information submitted did not demonstrate an inability to pay the filing fee due to poverty. Rather than immediately deciding the application, the court ordered Nyarusalemu to supplement it by August 28, 2026, with her employer’s name and address if employed, her monthly take-home pay, and her monthly expenses. The supplement must be sworn as true and correct under penalty of perjury. If she does not provide it, the application will be denied and she will have to pay the filing fee; she may instead pay the fee without further financial review.
Separately, after screening the proposed complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court ordered Nyarusalemu to file a more definite statement by August 28, 2026. The statement must clarify how she was discriminated against, whether she belongs to a protected group, the basis for the alleged discrimination or harassment, the adverse action or harassment involved, who was responsible, when the events occurred, how they affected her employment, what the employer knew, and whether it took remedial action. The court reserved its assessment of whether the complaint states a plausible claim and did not order service on the defendant.
Key Takeaways
- The court did not grant or deny in forma pauperis status; it required additional financial information before resolving the application.
- Paying the filing fee would eliminate further review of Nyarusalemu’s finances, but it would not excuse the separately ordered more definite statement.
- Compliance does not guarantee that the action will proceed: the court still must evaluate the clarified allegations before ordering service, and failure to comply could result in dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the separate inquiries that can arise at the outset of a pro se case. A plaintiff seeking fee relief must provide enough financial detail to establish inability to pay, while the complaint must contain enough factual detail for the court to assess whether it states a plausible claim.
The court made no determination on the merits of Nyarusalemu’s Title VII claim. Its order gives her an opportunity to supply the financial and factual information needed for the court’s subsequent review.