Source: http://ks.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20150113_0000042.DKS.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-03-25 05:45:30
Document Index: 675105725

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1915', '§1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915']

In conjunction with her federal court Complaint[1] alleging wrongful employment discharge and discrimination (Doc. 1), Plaintiff Rita Hopson has filed a Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees ( IFP Application, Doc. 3, sealed), with an accompanying Affidavit of Financial Status (Doc. 3-1, sealed). Having reviewed Plaintiff's motion, as well as her financial affidavit and Complaint, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion, but RECOMMENDS that the District Court DISMISS Plaintiff's claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim for which relieve may be granted.
In her supporting financial affidavit, Plaintiff indicates she is separated.[2] (Doc. 3-1, sealed, at 1.) She lists no dependents. ( Id., at 2.) She is currently employed as a contact negotiator, making a modest monthly wage and receiving health insurance through her employer. ( Id. ) She indicates her husband is employed as a "field service engineer, " but provides no details regarding his compensation, indicating that "due to separation, spouse refuses to provide any information." ( Id., at 3.) She indicates they do not own real property, but lists two automobiles registered in her husband's name. ( Id., at 3-4.) She lists no government benefits other than unemployment compensation. ( Id., at 4-5.)
Plaintiff indicates a small amount of cash on hand, as well as a larger amount in her husband's checking and/or savings accounts. ( Id., at 4.) She pays a significant amount for monthly rent and enumerates reasonable monthly expenses, including utilities, gas, and telephone. ( Id., at 5.) She does not indicate whether she has filed for bankruptcy, but lists significant student loans and medical bills. ( Id., at 5-6.)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2), a court "shall dismiss" an in forma pauperis case "at any time if the court determines that... the action or appeal - (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." "When a plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, a court has a duty to review the complaint to ensure a proper balance between these competing interests." Mitchell v. Deseret Health Care Facility, No. 13-1360-RDR-KGG, 2013 WL 5797609, at *1 (D. Kan. Sept. 30, 2013).[3] The purpose of § 1915(e) is "the prevention of abusive or capricious litigation." Harris v. Campbell, 804 F.Supp. 153, 155 (D.Kan. 1992) (internal citation omitted) (discussing similar language contained in § 1915(d), prior to the 1996 amendment). Sua sponte dismissal under § 1915 is proper when the complaint clearly appears frivolous or malicious on its face. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1108 (10th Cir. 1991).
In determining whether dismissal is appropriate under § 1915(e)(2)(B), a plaintiff's complaint will be analyzed by the Court under the same sufficiency standard as a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. See Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1217-18 (10th Cir. 2007). In making this analysis, the Court will accept as true all well-pleaded facts and will draw all reasonable inferences from those facts in favor of the plaintiff. See Moore v. Guthrie, 438 F.3d 1036, 1039 (10th Cir.2006). The Court will also liberally construe the pleadings of a pro se plaintiff. See Jackson v. Integra Inc., 952 F.2d 1260, 1261 (10th Cir.1991). This does not mean, however, that the Court must become an advocate for the pro se plaintiff. Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110; see also Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594 (1972). Liberally construing a pro se plaintiff's complaint means that "if the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so despite the plaintiff's failure to cite proper legal authority, his confusion of various legal theories, his poor syntax and sentence construction, or his unfamiliarity with pleading requirements." Hall, 935 F.2d at 1110.
While a complaint generally need not plead detailed facts, Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a), it must give the defendant sufficient notice of the claims asserted by the plaintiff so that they can provide an appropriate answer. Monroe v. Owens, Nos. 01-1186, 01-1189, 01-1207, 2002 WL 437964 (10th Cir. Mar. 21, 2002). Rule 8(a) requires three minimal pieces of information in order to provide such notice to the defendant: (1) the pleading should contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief; (2) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends; and (3) the relief requested. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). After reviewing Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) and construing the allegations liberally, if the Court finds that she has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the Court is compelled to recommend that the action be dismissed.
Plaintiff, who is a citizen of Kansas, brings her claims against Defendant, which is also a citizen of Kansas. Thus, diversity is not a valid basis for federal court jurisdiction. Plaintiff does not, however, check any of the lines in the form Complaint ...