Source: http://ks.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20131119_0002069.DKS.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-01-19 02:18:55
Document Index: 80675462

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

| Nickles v. Newton City Municipal Court
Nickles v. Newton City Municipal Court
NICHOLAS NICKLES, Plaintiff,v.NEWTON CITY MUNICIPAL COURT, Newton, Kansas, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES, DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, AND REPORT & RECOMMENDATION FOR DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT
In conjunction with his federal court Complaint alleging a ongoing problems with a municipal court judge, Plaintiff 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). He also filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. (Doc. 4.) Having reviewed Plaintiff's motions, as well as his Complaint (Doc. 1), the Court is prepared to rule.
I. Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a federal court may authorize commencement of an action without prepayment of fees, costs, etc., by a person who lacks financial means. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). In so doing, the court considers the affidavit of financial status included with the application. See id. There is a liberal policy toward permitting proceedings in forma pauperis when necessary to ensure that the courts are available to all citizens, not just those who can afford to pay. See generally, Yellen v. Cooper, 828 F.2d 1471 (10th Cir. 1987). In construing the application and affidavit, courts generally seek to compare an applicant's monthly expenses to monthly income. See Patillo v. N. Am. Van Lines, Inc., No. 02-2162, 2002 WL 1162684, at *1 (D.Kan. Apr. 15, 2002); Webb v. Cessna Aircraft, No. 00-2229, 2000 WL 1025575, at *1 (D.Kan. July 17, 2000) (denying motion because "Plaintiff is employed, with monthly income exceeding her monthly expenses by approximately $600.00").
In his supporting financial affidavit, Plaintiff indicates he is 23-years-old and single, but has a two-year-old daughter for whom he provides monthly financial support. ( Id., at 1-2.) He is currently employed at a fast food restaurant in Newton, making a modest monthly wage and does not receive health insurance. ( Id. ) He also lists unemployment and governmental child support benefits. ( Id., at 4.) He does not own an automobile or real property, but pays a modest amount in monthly rent for her home. ( Id., 3, 4, 5.) He lists groceries and telephone as his only monthly expenses in addition to certain other debts, including medical expenses and court costs. ( Id., at 5.) He has not filed for bankruptcy and indicates only a small amount of cash on hand. ( Id., at 4, 6.)
Considering all of the information contained in the financial affidavit, Plaintiff has established that his access to the Courts would otherwise be seriously impaired if he is not granted IFP status. Under these circumstances, the undersigned Magistrate Judge GRANTS Plaintiff's motion for IFP status.
II. Motion to Appoint Counsel, Sufficiency of Complaint, and R&R for Dismissal.
The Court is not satisfied that Plaintiff diligently searched for counsel as he has not listed any attorneys with whom he communicated. ( See Doc. 4.) Rather than require Plaintiff to contact additional attorneys, however, the Court will focus on the third Castner factor, the merits of Plaintiff's claims.
When a plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, a court has a duty pursuant to Section 1915 of Tile 28 of the United States Code to review the complaint. Dismissal is required if the court determines that the action (1) is frivolous or malicious, (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from suit. 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2).[1] 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).
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.
A complaint "must set forth the grounds of plaintiff's entitlement to relief through more than labels, conclusions and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Fisher v. Lynch, 531 F.Supp.2d 1253, 1260 (D. Kan. Jan. 22, 2008) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007), and Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir.1991) (holding that a plaintiff need not precisely state each element, but must plead minimal factual allegations on those material elements that must be proved)). "In other words, plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to state a claim which is plausible - rather than merely conceivable - on its face." Fisher, 531 F.Supp.2d at 1260 (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1974). ...