From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

LEIN v. WHITTOW

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
Mar 27, 2006
Case No. 06C0235 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 27, 2006)

Opinion

Case No. 06C0235.

March 27, 2006


DECISION AND ORDER


Plaintiff John A. Lein, a pro se litigant, has filed an action alleging that his due process rights were violated when the City of Milwaukee began foreclosure proceedings against his property, and eventually took his property, without properly notifying him. Ordinarily, a plaintiff must pay a statutory filing fee of $250 to bring an action in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Plaintiff, however, has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Section 1915 is meant to ensure indigent litigants meaningful access to federal courts, Nietzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989), and applies to both nonprisoner plaintiffs and to plaintiffs who are incarcerated, Floyd v. United States Postal Serv., 105 F.3d 274, 275-77 (6th Cir. 1997) ("[T]he only logical interpretation of the statute is that non-prisoners have the option to proceed in forma pauperis under § 1915(a)."). Under § 1915, an indigent party may commence a federal court action, without paying required costs and fees, upon submission of an affidavit asserting inability "to pay such fees or give security therefor" and stating "the nature of the action, defense or appeal and the affiant's belief that the person is entitled to redress." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

Plaintiff has filed the required affidavit of indigence. Upon review of that affidavit, the court is satisfied that plaintiff meets the poverty requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiff states that he is homeless and has no income and no assets.

District courts may screen complaints filed by all litigants, prisoners and non-prisoners, regardless of fee status. Rowe v. Shake, 196 F.3d 778, 783 (7th Cir. 1999). The district court may screen the complaint prior to service on the defendants, and must dismiss the complaint if it is legally "frivolous or malicious" or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.Id.; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless.Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. A complaint, or portion thereof, should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)). In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question, Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Trs. of Rex Hosp., 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), as well as construe the pleading in the light most favorable to plaintiff and resolve all doubts in plaintiff's favor, Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). The court is obliged to give a pro se plaintiff's allegations, however inartfully pleaded, a liberal construction. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).

Although the complaint is somewhat confusing, I cannot conclude that the complaint is legally frivolous or malicious or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Accordingly, I will not dismiss plaintiff's claim at this time.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(2), that the U.S. Marshals Service shall serve a copy of the complaint, a waiver of service form and/or the summons, and this order upon defendants. Plaintiff is advised that Congress requires the U.S. Marshals Service to charge for making or attempting such service. 28 U.S.C. § 1921(b). The current fee for waiver-of-service packages is $8 per item. The full fee schedule is provided in Revision to United States Marshals Service Fees for Services, 65 Fed. Reg. 47,859, at 47,862 (Aug. 4, 2000) (to be codified at 28 C.F.R. §§ 0.114(a)(2), (a)(3)). Although Congress requires the court to order service by the U.S. Marshals Service precisely because in forma pauperis plaintiffs are indigent, it has not made any provision for these fees to be waived either by the court or by the U.S. Marshals Service.

Plaintiff, however, should provide defendants or their counsel with copies of all future motions or papers filed by the plaintiff in this action.


Summaries of

LEIN v. WHITTOW

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
Mar 27, 2006
Case No. 06C0235 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 27, 2006)
Case details for

LEIN v. WHITTOW

Case Details

Full title:JOHN A. LEIN, Plaintiff, v. WAYNE F. WHITTOW, JOHN J. HEINEN, and DEBORAH…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

Date published: Mar 27, 2006

Citations

Case No. 06C0235 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 27, 2006)