From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lister v. City of Wichita

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Apr 14, 2021
Case No. 20-1312-KHV-GEB (D. Kan. Apr. 14, 2021)

Opinion

Case No. 20-1312-KHV-GEB

04-14-2021

JAMES LEE LISTER, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF WICHITA, Defendants.


ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff James Lee Lister's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 3, sealed) and supporting Affidavit of Financial Status (ECF No. 3-1 sealed). For the reasons outlined below, Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 3) is GRANTED.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court has the discretion to authorize the filing of a civil case "without prepayment of fees or security thereof, by a person who submits an affidavit that . . . the person is unable to pay such fees or give security thereof." "Proceeding in forma pauperis in a civil case 'is a privilege, not a right—fundamental or otherwise.'" To determine whether a party is eligible to file without prepayment of the fee, the Court commonly reviews the party's financial affidavit and compares his or her monthly expenses with the monthly income disclosed therein.

Barnett ex rel. Barnett v. Nw. Sch., No. 00-2499, 2000 WL 1909625, at *1 (D. Kan. Dec. 26, 2000) (citing Cabrera v. Horgas, 173 F.3d 863, at *1 (10th Cir. April 23, 1999)).

Id. (quoting White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1233 (10th Cir. 1998)).

Alexander v. Wichita Hous. Auth., No. 07-1149-JTM, 2007 WL 2316902, at *1 (D. Kan. Aug. 9, 2007) (citing Patillo v. N. Am. Van Lines, Inc., No. 02-2162-JWL-DJW, 2000 WL 1162684, at *1) (D. Kan. Apr. 15, 2002) and Webb v. Cessna Aircraft, No. 00-2229-JWL-DJW, 2000 WL 1025575, at *1 (D. Kan. July 17, 2000)).

Both the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and this Court have a liberal policy toward permitting proceedings in forma pauperis. After careful review of Plaintiff's description of his financial resources (ECF No. 3, sealed), and comparison of Plaintiff's listed monthly income (unemployed and receiving minimal unemployment and welfare benefits), to his listed monthly expenses, the Court finds he is financially unable to pay the filing fee.

Mitchell v. Deseret Health Care Facility, No. 13-1360-RDR-KGG, 2013 WL 5797609, at *1 (D. Kan. Sept. 30, 2013) (citing, generally, Yellen v. Cooper, 828 F.2d 1471 (10th Cir. 1987)).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (ECF No. 3) is GRANTED. The clerk of court is directed to undertake service of process under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the service period under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) is extended to June 15, 2021.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated at Wichita, Kansas this 14th day of April 2021.

s/ Gwynne E. Birzer

GWYNNE E. BIRZER

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Lister v. City of Wichita

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Apr 14, 2021
Case No. 20-1312-KHV-GEB (D. Kan. Apr. 14, 2021)
Case details for

Lister v. City of Wichita

Case Details

Full title:JAMES LEE LISTER, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF WICHITA, Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Date published: Apr 14, 2021

Citations

Case No. 20-1312-KHV-GEB (D. Kan. Apr. 14, 2021)