Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_24-cv-03134/USCOURTS-azd-2_24-cv-03134-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 485
Nature of Suit: 
Cause of Action: 47:227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Charles H Landwer,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Royal Neighbors of America, US Funeral 

Expenses, and Unknown Party,

Defendants.

No. CV-24-03134-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

Plaintiff, who has been granted in forma pauperis status, has moved to have the 

Marshals serve his complaint. (Doc. 9). Generally, once in forma pauperis status has been 

granted, if a Plaintiff requests Marshal service, the Court must grant the request. See 

Boudette v. Barnette, 923 F.2d 754, 756–57 (9th Cir. 1991). 

However, the Court notes that there appears to be a pattern by this particular Plaintiff 

wherein when he receives one telemarketing call, he files suit over that one call. This 

pattern has resulted in Plaintiff filing four lawsuits in six weeks against the same 

Defendant: US Funeral Expenses. (See CV 24-2930-PHX-DMF; CV 24-3064-PHX-KML; 

CV 24-3471-PHX-KML and this case). 

The Court charging a filing fee forces a litigant to consolidate related cases rather 

than expend extra personal resources. As the Supreme Court has noted, Congress 

understood this potential abuse of the in forma pauperis statute. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 

U.S. 319, 324 (1989) (finding Congress recognized that “a litigant whose filing fees and 

court costs are assumed by the public, unlike a paying litigant, lacks an economic incentive 

Case 2:24-cv-03134-JAT Document 12 Filed 12/16/24 Page 1 of 2
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

to refrain from filing frivolous, malicious, or repetitive lawsuits.”).

Here, the Court questions whether each of Plaintiff’s cases should have been filed 

separately, and indeed whether Plaintiff would have pursued this strategy if he was required 

to pay the filing fee. Plaintiff is cautioned that an abuse of the in forma pauperis statutes 

could result in such status being denied or revoked. See Aziz v. Burrows, 976 F.2d 1158, 

1158 (8th Cir. 1992) (finding that the district court can dismiss duplicative or repetitive 

lawsuits under 28 U.S.C. § 1915); Pittman v. Moore, 980 F.2d 994, 995 (5th Cir. 1993)

(same).

Here, because each case appears to be based on a different call, albeit from the same 

Defendant allegedly selling the same service, the cases are not exactly the same. However, 

duplicative for purposes of the statute includes that, “district courts may dismiss a 

duplicative complaint raising issues directly related to issues in another pending action 

brought by the same party.” Aziz, 976 F.2d at 1158 (emphasis added). 

The practical implications in this case include that Plaintiff is trying to obtain 

Marshal service on US Funeral Expenses repeatedly in Florida. (See, e.g., Doc. 11 at 1, 3). 

Indeed, Plaintiff is trying to serve them twice in this case alone. (Id.).

Thus, although the Court has granted in forma pauperis status and allowed 

Plaintiff’s case to proceed rather than the extreme remedy of dismissal, the Court 

nonetheless finds that Plaintiff is abusing the in forma pauperis status by repetitively filing 

one case per call and thereafter seeking Marshal service multiple times on the same 

Defendant for the same behavior. As a result,

IT IS ORDERED that the motion for service by the Marshals (Doc. 9) is denied. 

Plaintiff must serve within the time limits of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

Dated this 16th day of December, 2024.

Case 2:24-cv-03134-JAT Document 12 Filed 12/16/24 Page 2 of 2