Mays v. Global Health Link
- Donovan Frank
- 0:25-cv-04676
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Yolanda Mays v. Global Health Link, Magistrate Judge Foster denied Mays's application to proceed without paying the court filing fee, finding her approximately $46,000 annual income sufficient to cover the $405.00 cost without undue hardship, and gave her 21 days to pay or risk dismissal.
Pro se plaintiff Yolanda Mays, who is seeking to sue her employer Global Health Link for employment discrimination and must now decide whether to pay the $405.00 filing fee within 21 days and whether to amend her complaint.
What happened
In Yolanda Mays v. Global Health Link (Case No. 25-cv-4676), plaintiff Yolanda Mays asked the court to waive the filing fee so she could pursue her employment discrimination lawsuit without paying upfront. The court evaluates such requests — known as 'in forma pauperis' or IFP applications — by asking whether the person can afford court costs without serious financial hardship or going without life's necessities. Mays reported earning about $46,000 per year, an income the court noted is nearly three times the federal poverty guideline for a single person in Minnesota, and that her income has consistently exceeded her expenses for roughly the past six months.
The court acknowledged that the $405.00 filing fee is not a trivial amount and that Mays alleges past events left her in a difficult financial position. Nevertheless, the court concluded that her income is sufficient to cover the filing fee without placing her at risk of genuine hardship. The court also noted concerns about the substance of her complaint: Mays claims race, religion, and national origin discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but her complaint does not include any factual details connecting her employer's conduct to those protected characteristics.
Magistrate Judge Foster denied the fee-waiver application and ordered Mays to pay the $405.00 filing fee within 21 days. If she does not pay, the case may be dismissed without prejudice — meaning she could potentially refile later. The court also strongly advised Mays to consider amending her complaint to add specific factual allegations supporting her discrimination claims, and directed her to pro se (self-represented litigant) resources on the court's website.
The detailed version
In Yolanda Mays v. Global Health Link, No. 25-cv-4676 (D. Minn.), Magistrate Judge Dulce J. Foster issued an order on December 29, 2025, denying Mays's application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) — a procedural mechanism under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 that allows litigants who cannot afford court costs to file without prepaying the filing fee.
IFP Analysis
The court applied the standard articulated in Ayers v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, 70 F.3d 1268 (5th Cir. 1995), asking whether the applicant can afford the costs of proceeding without 'undue hardship or deprivation of the necessities of life.' Mays reported annual income of approximately $46,000, which the court calculated places her at nearly 300% of the federal poverty guideline for a single individual in Minnesota. The court further noted that her income has substantially exceeded her expenses for approximately six months. While acknowledging the $405.00 filing fee is non-trivial and that Mays alleges past financial hardship, the court ultimately concluded her income is sufficient. The IFP application was denied.
Deadline and Consequence
Mays was ordered to pay the $405.00 filing fee within 21 days of December 29, 2025. Failure to pay may result in dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Dismissal without prejudice would not bar Mays from refiling the action, though other limitations (such as any applicable statute of limitations) could affect her ability to do so.
Substantive Warning Regarding the Complaint
The court issued an advisory (not a binding ruling on the merits) regarding Mays's Title VII claim. Mays alleges discrimination based on race, religion, and national origin under 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., but the complaint contains no factual allegations tying the defendant's conduct to those protected characteristics — and does not even identify her race, religion, or national origin. The court strongly advised Mays to consider amending her complaint before proceeding to include factual allegations that, if proven, would establish a Title VII violation. The court also directed Mays to pro se litigation resources on the District of Minnesota's website.
Disposition
The IFP application (ECF No. 2) is DENIED. Mays must pay the $405.00 filing fee within 21 days or the action may be dismissed without prejudice.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.