Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jones v. Jones

United States District Court, D. Kansas

April 2, 2019

CHAYA JONES, Plaintiff,
v.
TWAKISH JONES, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          JAMES P. O'HARA U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Pro se plaintiff, Chaya Jones, has filed a motion to commence and proceed with this case without prepayment of fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff brings claims against a variety of defendants, including mental facilities; hospitals and medical centers; schools and universities; broad entities like the “state police, ” “state court judges, ” and “armed forces;” numerous individuals with the last name “Jones”; and defendants who cannot be discerned on the face of the complaint.[1] The complaint alleges “fraud, false imprisonment, abuse, neglect, harassment, assault and battery, health hazard, threats, and all other acts of crimes committed. Violation of Patients and Civil Rights. State court judge and state police are not practicing the law.”[2] After reviewing plaintiff's application and two supplements, the court respectfully denies the motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

         Section 1915 of Title 28 of the United States Code allows the court to authorize the commencement of a civil action “without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit that . . . the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.”[3] To succeed on a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the movant must show a financial inability to pay the required filing fees.[4] “One need not be ‘absolutely destitute' to proceed [in forma pauperis], but [in forma pauperis] need not be granted where one can pay or give security for the costs ‘and still be able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life.'”[5] “Proceeding in forma pauperis in a civil case ‘is a privilege, not a right-fundamental or otherwise.'”[6] The decision to grant or deny in forma pauperis status under § 1915 lies within the “wide discretion” of the trial court.[7]

         Plaintiff has failed to adequately demonstrate the need to proceed in forma pauperis. Her application contains numerous deficiencies regarding her financial status, which the court outlined in its order requiring supplementation.[8] On March 18, 2019, plaintiff filed a supplement, in which she acknowledged some of the court's questions without adequately addressing the deficiencies.[9] The court entered an order on March 19, 2019, instructing plaintiff to provide all of the missing information, specifically, “the financial and ownership information of plaintiff's car; all sources of income over the past 12 months, or, if none, how plaintiff pays her monthly house payment; and an updated, accurate log of her monthly household expenses.”[10]

         Plaintiff filed a second supplement on March 29, 2019, which again fails to provide the requested financial information.[11] Plaintiff merely states, “I do not have any income at this present moment. I tried to find employment, and I am still looking.”[12] The supplement fails to address any of the requested information about her car, her sources of income, what her monthly expenses are, and how she pays these expenses. Without providing any of the required substantive information about her financial condition, plaintiff has not shown that she is entitled to in forma pauperis status.

         Plaintiff is therefore ordered to pay the filing fees in full by April 16, 2019. If she fails to pay the fee in full by this deadline, the undersigned will issue a report and recommendation to the presiding U.S. District Judge, Julie A. Robinson, recommending that the case be dismissed without prejudice for lack of prosecution.

         Plaintiff is hereby informed that, within 14 days after she is served with a copy of this order, she may, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 and D. Kan. Rule 72.1.4(a), file written objections by filing a motion for review of this order. Plaintiff must file any objections within the 14-day period if she wants to have appellate review of this order. If she does not timely file her objections, no court will allow appellate review.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.

---------

Notes:

[1] ECF No. 1.

[2] ECF No. 1. On March 18, 2019, plaintiff filed an amended complaint that contains additional narrative and functionally serves as a supplement to the original complaint. See ECF No. 8.

[3] 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1).

[4] United States v. Garcia, 164 Fed.Appx. 785, 786 n.1 (10th Cir. 2006); Lister v. Dept. of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.