Source: http://nm.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180124_0000170.DNM.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 20:50:01+00:00

Document:
WELLS FARGO, STATE OF NEW MEXICO, MARK SANCHEZ, DAVID MORANDA, and DAVID E. FINGER, Defendants.
Menefee v. Werholtz, 368 Fed.Appx. 879, 884 (10th Cir. 2010) (citing Ragan v. Cox, 305 F.2d 58, 60 (10th Cir. 1962). “The statute [allowing a litigant to proceed in forma pauperis ] was intended for the benefit of those too poor to pay or give security for costs....” Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 344 (1948).
The Court will grant Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Plaintiff signed an affidavit stating he is unable to pay the costs of these proceedings and stated: (i) his total monthly income is $700.00 in disability; (ii) he is unemployed; and (iii) his monthly expenses are approximately $6, 000.00. The Court finds Plaintiff is unable to pay the costs of these proceedings because his monthly expenses exceed his low monthly income. See Adkins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948) (While a litigant need not be “absolutely destitute, ” “an affidavit is sufficient which states that one cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for the costs and still be able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life”).
Excessive Force/Denied First amendment/Identity theft 42(US) “rule by thieves” [sic] Complaint at 1-2. In response to the form Complaint's instructions to state the background of the case, Plaintiff indicates that a camera was implanted in his left eye “without consent via anntenna chip in and around the neck (via monitores).” [sic] Complaint at 2. Much of the rest of that Plaintiff has written in the Complaint is unintelligible. Pages 7-41 of the Complaint are various documents.
As the party seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, Plaintiff bears the burden of alleging facts that support jurisdiction. See Dutcher v. Matheson, 733 F.3d 980, 985 (10th Cir. 2013) (“Since federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, we presume no jurisdiction exists absent an adequate showing by the party invoking federal jurisdiction”). Plaintiff's Complaint does not contain “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction” as required by Rule 8(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Court will dismiss the Complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action”); Brereton v. Bountiful City Corp., 434 F.3d 1213, 1218 (10th Cir.2006) (“[D]ismissals for lack of jurisdiction should be without prejudice because the court, having determined that it lacks jurisdiction over the action, is incapable of reaching a disposition on the merits of the underlying claims.”).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.