Source: http://ks.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20150302_0000216.DKS.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-12-09 17:21:52
Document Index: 64235942

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1915', '§1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§1915', '§636']

| Hopson v. VIA Christi Health
RITA HOPSON, Plaintiff,v.VIA CHRISTI HEALTH, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER ON MOTION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES and REPORT & RECOMMENDATION OF DISMISSAL In conjunction with her federal court Complaint alleging wrongful employment slander and defamation (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 with no dependents.[1] (Doc. 3-1, sealed, at 2, 3.) 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 relatively expensive 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 has not filed for bankruptcy, but lists significant student loans and medical bills. (Id., at 5-6.)
Considering all of the information contained in the financial affidavit, Plaintiff has reasonable monthly expenses and financial obligations with somewhat limited income. The Court finds Plaintiff has established that she is entitled to file this action without payment of fees and costs. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and directs that this case be filed without payment of a filing fee.
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).[2] 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.
Plaintiff, who is a citizen of Kansas, brings her claims against Defendants, who she also lists as citizens 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 for bases of jurisdiction other than diversity. (See Doc. 1, at 3.)
In her statement of claim, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants “made slanderous and defamatory statements to Via Christi on February 17, 2014 as a result I as terminated.” (Id.) She seeks “[c]ompensation due to disgrace and ridicule.” (Id., at 4.) The factual basis for Plaintiff’s claim fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The claims she alleges – slander and defamation – are not based on federal law, statute, or regulation. They are state law tort causes of action. Plaintiff lacks diversity jurisdiction because the Defendants are alleged to be Kansas citizens, like Plaintiff. Based on the information presented in her Complaint, Plaintiff has not plead a viable federal court cause of action.
The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted, requiring a recommendation to the District Court of Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2). This Court RECOMMENDS to the District Court that the case be DISMISSED.[3]
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for IFP status (Doc. 3) is GRANTED.
IT IS RECOMMENDED to the District Court that Plaintiff’s Complaint be DISMISSED for the failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The Clerk’s office shall not proceed to issue summons in this case at the present time.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that a copy of the recommendation shall be sent to Plaintiff via certified mail. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, and D.Kan. Rule 72.1.4, Plaintiff shall have ten days after service of a copy of these proposed findings and recommendations to serve and file with the U.S. District Judge assigned to the case, her written objections to the findings of fact, conclusions of law, or recommendations of the undersigned Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff’s failure to file such written, specific objections within the ten-day period will bar appellate review of the proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the recommended disposition.