Carr v. Sherwin Williams Manufacturing

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

DEBRA ANN CARR, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 25-1040-EFM-GEB ) SHERWIN WILLIAMS ) MANUFACTURING, ) ) Defendants. ) )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Debra Ann Carr’s Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 3, sealed). For the reasons outlined below, Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 3, sealed) is GRANTED. Under 28 U.S.C. §1915(a), the Court has discretion to authorize 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.”1 “Proceeding in forma pauperis in a civil case ‘is a privilege, not a right-fundamental or otherwise.’”2 However, there is a “liberal policy” toward permitting proceedings in forma pauperis “when necessary to ensure that the courts are available to all citizens, not just those who can afford

1 Barnett ex rel. Barnett v. Nw. Sch., No. 00-2499-KHV, 2000 WL 1909625, at *1 (D. Kan. Dec. 26, 2000) (citing Cabrera v. Horgas, 173 F.3d 863, at *1 (10th Cir. 1999); Cross v. General Motors Corp., 721 F.2d 1152, 1157 (8th Cir. 1983); and Buggs v. Riverside Hosp., No. 97-1088-WEB, 1997 WL 321289, at *1 (D. Kan. Apr. 9, 1997)). 2 Barnett, at *1 (quoting White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1233 (10th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1008 (1999)). to pay.”3 When determining whether a party is eligible to file without prepayment of the fee, the court reviews a party’s financial affidavit and compares her monthly expenses with the monthly income disclosed therein.4 After careful review of Plaintiff’s financial affidavit

and Supplements,5 the Court finds she is financially unable to pay the filing fee and qualifies to proceed In Forma Pauperis. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion and Declaration for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 3, sealed) is GRANTED. Although service of process would normally be undertaken by the clerk of court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(d) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3), the clerk is directed to stay service of process pending the District Court’s review of the Report and Recommendation filed simultaneously here.6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 16th day of July 2025. s/ Gwynne E. Birzer GWYNNE E. BIRZER United States Magistrate Judge

3 Alexander v. Wichita Hous. Auth., No. 07-1149-JTM, 2007 WL 2316902, at *1 (D. Kan. Aug. 9, 2007) (citing Yellen v. Cooper, 82 F.2d 1471 (10th Cir.1987)). 4 Id. (citing Patillo v. N. Am. Van Lines, Inc., No. 02-2162-JWL, 2002 WL 1162684, at *1 (D. Kan. April. 15, 2002); Webb v. Cessna Aircraft, No. 00-2229-JWL, 2000 WL 1025575, at *1 (D. Kan. July 17, 2000)). 5 ECF No. 3-1, sealed; ECF Nos. 6-7. 6 See Webb. v. Vratil, No. 12-2588-EFM, ECF No. 7 (D. Kan. Sept. 28, 2012) (withholding service of process pending review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and jurisdictional review).