Opinion
1:24-cv-00588-JMR-JHR
07-09-2024
ANDY BOURDON, LAURA PORTER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JOHN RAMEN VIGIL, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND ORDER FOR AMENDED COMPLAINT
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiffs' Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Doc. 1, filed June 10, 2024 (“Complaint”), and Plaintiffs' Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, Doc. 2, filed June 10, 2024.
Application to Proceed in forma pauperis
The statute for proceedings in forma pauperis, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), provides that the Court may authorize the commencement of any suit without prepayment of fees by a person who submits an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets the person possesses and that the person is unable to pay such fees.
When a district court receives an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, it should examine the papers and determine if the requirements of [28 U.S.C.] § 1915(a) are satisfied. If they are, leave should be granted. Thereafter, if the court finds that the allegations of poverty are untrue or that the action is frivolous or malicious, it may dismiss the case[.]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). 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.” Id. at 339.
The Court grants Plaintiffs' Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Plaintiffs signed an affidavit stating they are unable to pay the costs of these proceedings and provided the following information: (i) Plaintiffs' combined average monthly income amount during the past 12 months is $1,386.00 in food stamps; (ii) Plaintiffs have no cash and no funds in bank accounts; and (iii) Plaintiffs' four minor children rely on Plaintiffs for support. The Court finds that Plaintiffs are unable to pay the costs of this proceeding because they signed an affidavit stating they are unable to pay the costs of this proceeding, because of their low monthly income, and because their four minor children rely on them for support.
Order for Amended Complaint
The Complaint contains some deficiencies described below. See Lowrey v. Sandoval County Children Youth and Families Department, 2023WL4560223 *2 (10th Cir. July 17, 2023) (stating: “Given a referral for non-dispositive pretrial matters, a magistrate judge may point out deficiencies in the complaint [and] order a litigant to show cause”) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a)).
The Complaint does not provide sufficient notice to Defendants for preparing their defenses and does not provide sufficient clarity for the Court to adjudicate the merits because the Complaint is 186 pages in length.
Rule 8(d)(1) requires “simple, concise, and direct” allegations. The complaint “must explain what each defendant did to him or her; when the defendant did it;
how the defendant's action harmed him or her; and, what specific legal right the plaintiff believes the defendant violated.” Nasious [v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E.Agents], 492 F.3d [1158] at 1163 [10th Cir. 2007]. The purpose of these requirements is to provide notice to a defendant for preparing a defense and sufficient clarity for the court to adjudicate the merits. Id.... The sheer length of the [98-page] complaint makes it difficult to determine precisely what material facts support the various claims made.Lowrey v. Sandoval County Children Youth and Families Department, 2023WL4560223 *2 (10th Cir. July 17, 2023).
It also appears Plaintiffs are also asserting claims on behalf of their minor children. See Application at 1. "A litigant may bring his own claims to federal court without counsel, but not the claims of others." Fymbo v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 213 F.3d 1320, 1321 (10th Cir. 2000); see also Kanth v. Lubeck, 123 Fed.Appx. 921, 923 n.1 (10th Cir. 2005) (stating “as a non-lawyer parent, appearing pro se, [plaintiff] may not represent his minor children in federal court”) (citing Meeker v. Kercher, 782 F.2d 153, 154 (10th Cir. 1986) (holding that “under Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1654 [stating parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel], a minor child cannot bring suit through a parent acting as next friend if the parent is not represented by an attorney”)).
Plaintiffs attached several documents to their Complaint. The Court will not review the attachments to a complaint to determine whether Plaintiff can state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005) (“the court cannot take on the responsibility of serving as the litigant's attorney in constructing arguments and searching the record”). Any information in the attachments that form a basis for Plaintiff's claims must be set forth in allegations in an amended complaint. The Court may consider the documents attached to the Complaint or amended complaint at a later stage in this case in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence.
The Court orders Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint not exceeding 50 pages. The amended complaint must comply with the Federal and Local Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b) (“A party must state its claims . . . in numbered paragraphs”).
Case Management
Generally, pro se litigants are held to the same standards of professional responsibility as trained attorneys. It is a pro se litigant's responsibility to become familiar with and to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico (the “Local Rules”).
Guide for Pro Se Litigants at 4, United States District Court, District of New Mexico (October 2022). The Local Rules, the Guide for Pro Se Litigants and a link to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available on the Court's website: http://www.nmd.uscourts.gov.
Compliance with Rule 11
The Court reminds Plaintiffs of their obligations pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n. 1 (10th Cir. 2008) (“Pro se status does not excuse the obligation of any litigant to comply with the fundamental requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure.”). Rule 11(b) provides:
Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper--whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it--an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). Failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 11 may subject Plaintiff to sanctions, including monetary penalties and nonmonetary directives. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c).
IT IS ORDERED that:
(i) Plaintiffs' Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs, Doc. 2, filed June 10, 2024, is GRANTED.
(ii) Plaintiffs shall, within 21 days of entry of this Order, file an amended complaint not exceeding 50 pages. Failure to timely file an amended complaint may result in dismissal of this case.