Feedback

Lugo V Concentrix Corporation

                UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                             
                    DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                

 EMMANUEL A. LUGO,                  Case No. 25-CV-2585 (ECT/JFD)        

               Plaintiff,                                                

 v.                                          ORDER                       

 CONCENTRIX CORPORATION,                                                 

               Defendant.                                                
    On June 23, 2025, this Court entered an order noting that Plaintiff Emmanuel A. 
Lugo’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (ECF 
No. 2 (“IFP Application”)) was incomplete. (See ECF No. 10 at 1.) Specifically, the Order 
observed that Mr. Lugo’s Complaint and exhibits showed he “ha[d] been employed for the 
past several months” and that his recent salary was $65,758.63. (See id. at 1 (citing ECF 
No. 1-1 at 124).) The Order further noted the exhibits showed that “Mr. Lugo has continued 
to receive deposits from his employer until very recently…” (See id. (citing ECF No. 1-1 
at 156).)                                                                 
    The Order stated that “[w]ithout further information regarding Mr. Lugo’s recent 
and anticipated income,” the Court could not determine whether it would be appropriate to 
let Mr. Lugo proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) here. It thus denied the IFP Application 
and gave Mr. Lugo 14 days either to submit an amended IFP application or to pay the 
$405.00 filing fee. (See id. at 2.) For the amended application, the Order encouraged Mr. 
Lugo to use “the IFP application template provided by this District.” (Id.) 
    Mr. Lugo has submitted a new IFP application, but the new application remains 
flawed and does not address the Court’s earlier concerns. As an initial matter, Mr. Lugo did 

not use this District’s standard IFP-application template; instead, he used a form intended 
for Minnesota state courts. (See Aff. to Request Fee Waiver, ECF No. 30-1 (“Amended IFP 
Application”).) Notably, unlike the federal form, the state form does not ask about an ap-
plicant’s income over the past 12 months. (Compare id. at 3 with ECF No. 2 at 1.) As a 
result, Mr. Lugo’s new IFP application also provides no information about his earlier in-
come, despite this information plainly appearing in other documents he submitted and de-

spite the Court specifically instructing him to address this issue.       
    Additionally, the new IFP application contains a puzzling new entry: when asked 
about his income, Mr. Lugo states that he is receiving unspecified “Litigation Related Re-
imbursements.” (ECF No. 30-1 at 3.) If Mr. Lugo is not personally bearing the costs of this 
litigation, it would make little sense to conclude that paying this action’s filing fee would 

cause him undue hardship or deprive him of life’s necessities. Cf. Ayers v. Tex. Dep’t of 
Crim. Justice, 70 F.3d 1268, 1268 (5th Cir. 1995) (per curiam).           
    The Amended IFP Application is therefore DENIED. Mr. Lugo has 14 days to pay 
this action’s filing fee. If he does not, the Court will recommend dismissing this action 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute.     
    SO ORDERED.                                                          

Date: July 22, 2025                s/  John F. Docherty                  
                                   JOHN F. DOCHERTY                      
                                   United States Magistrate Judge