Algee v. Chase Card Funding, LLC

• Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois
• Decided: January 24, 2024
• Docket: 3:23-cv-03677
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

DAWSON ALGEE,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 3:23-cv-03677-JPG

CHASE CARD FUNDING LLC,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on a supplement (Doc. 9) to the Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 4). The Plaintiff filed their motion on November 14, 2023. On that same day, the Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging a breach of contract and fiduciary duty. He also claims that he was discriminated against under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Consumer Credit Protection Act. (Doc. 3). The Court was not satisfied based on Algee’s affidavit alone that he was indigent given he listed gifts or inheritances and other sources of income, in addition to provide services as a delivery driver for DoorDash. (Doc. 4). The Court denied Algee’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and directed him to either submit some kind of additional information to clarify his financial position or pay the required filing fee by January 17, 2024, or the case would be dismissed. (Doc. 8). On December 26, 2023, the Plaintiff filed the supplement with bank statements for the past year supporting his claims. (Doc. 9). A federal court may permit an indigent party to proceed without pre-payment of fees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Nevertheless, a court can deny a qualified plaintiff leave to file in forma pauperis or can dismiss a case if the action is clearly frivolous or malicious or fails to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii). The test for determining if an action is frivolous or without merit is whether the plaintiff can make a rational argument on the law or facts in support of the claim. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Corgain v. Miller, 708 F.2d 1241, 1247 (7th Cir. 1983). An action fails to state a claim if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). When assessing a petition to proceed in forma pauperis, a district court should inquire

into the merits of the plaintiff’s claims, and if the court finds them to be frivolous, it should deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Lucien v. Roegner, 682 F.2d 625, 626 (7th Cir. 1982). Based on Algee’s affidavit, supported by the supplemental information he has offered, the Court finds that the Plaintiff is indigent. Furthermore, the Court finds that the action is not clearly frivolous or malicious and does not fail to state a claim. Accordingly, in light of the additional information, the Court VACATES the previous order denying IFP (Doc. 8) and GRANTS the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 4). The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to send the Plaintiff a sufficient number of blank summons forms and USM-285 forms along with this order.

If the plaintiff wishes the United States Marshal Service to serve process in this case, the Court also DIRECTS the Plaintiff to provide to the United States Marshal Service the summons issued in this case, the appropriately completed USM-285 forms, and sufficient copies of the complaint for service.

IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: January 24, 2024

s/ J. Phil Gilbert J. PHIL GILBERT DISTRICT JUDGE