Hudson v. State of Minnesota
Jose M. Hudson v. State of Minnesota, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, Officer Wall, Officer Knutz, St. Paul Police Department, Minn. Stat. § 609.342 (2002), and Minn. Stat. § 624.713
- John Docherty
- 0:25-cv-04599
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Hudson v. State of Minnesota, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, et al., Magistrate Judge Docherty denied plaintiff Jose M. Hudson's request to proceed without paying court filing fees because his application contained no financial details, giving him 21 days to either submit a proper application or pay the filing fee.
Pro se plaintiff Jose M. Hudson, who is attempting to sue the State of Minnesota and several law enforcement defendants but has not yet been permitted to proceed due to an incomplete fee-waiver application.
What happened
In Hudson v. State of Minnesota, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, Officer Wall, Officer Knutz, St. Paul Police Department, Minn. Stat. § 609.342 (2002), and Minn. Stat. § 624.713, plaintiff Jose M. Hudson filed a motion asking the court to let him proceed without paying the standard filing fee — a privilege available to people who cannot afford court costs without serious financial hardship. Instead of using the court's standard financial disclosure form, Mr. Hudson simply stated he had 'low financial circumstances' without providing any specific information about his income, assets, expenses, or dependents.
Federal law requires anyone seeking to proceed without paying filing fees to submit a sworn statement listing all of their assets and financial details. Because Mr. Hudson's submission lacked those specifics, the court had no way to evaluate whether he actually qualifies for this fee waiver. The court's standard form is designed to collect exactly this kind of information.
Magistrate Judge Docherty denied Mr. Hudson's application without prejudice — meaning Mr. Hudson is allowed to try again. Within 21 days of December 15, 2025, Mr. Hudson must either submit a properly completed application using the court's standard form (which the court clerk has been ordered to send him) or pay the full filing fee. If he does neither, the court has said it will recommend dismissing the entire case for failure to move it forward.
The detailed version
In this procedural order issued December 15, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty addressed plaintiff Jose M. Hudson's 'Motion to Proceed' (Docket No. 2), which the court construed as an application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) — a legal mechanism under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) allowing indigent litigants to file suit without prepaying court fees.
The standard for IFP eligibility is whether the applicant can afford court costs without undue hardship or deprivation of the necessities of life, citing Ayers v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, 70 F.3d 1268 (5th Cir. 1995), and Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331 (1948). The court also noted that IFP status is a privilege, not a right, citing Weaver v. Pung, 925 F.2d 1097 (8th Cir. 1991).
Section 1915(a)(1) requires a sworn affidavit listing all assets. The District of Minnesota has a standard IFP application form requiring specific details about income, assets, expenses, and dependents. Mr. Hudson's submission merely stated he had 'low financial circumstances' with no supporting detail. The court found this insufficient to evaluate eligibility and denied the IFP application without prejudice.
The court ordered that within 21 days of December 15, 2025, Mr. Hudson must either (1) submit a new, properly completed IFP application, or (2) pay the full filing fee. Failure to do either will result in a recommendation to dismiss the action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute. The Clerk of Court was also directed to send Mr. Hudson a copy of the District's standard IFP form.
No substantive review of the underlying complaint was conducted in this order. The underlying case names as defendants the State of Minnesota, the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, Officer Wall, Officer Knutz, the St. Paul Police Department, and two Minnesota statutes (Minn. Stat. § 609.342 (2002) and Minn. Stat. § 624.713).
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.