Chad Kenyatta Leigh v. Labor Finders, et al.
This text of Chad Kenyatta Leigh v. Labor Finders, et al. (Chad Kenyatta Leigh v. Labor Finders, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
CHAD KENYATTA LEIGH,
Plaintiff,
v. Case No. 25-1238-EFM-BGS
LABOR FINDERS, et al.,
Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES
This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees filed by Plaintiff Chad Kenyatta Leigh, who is representing himself pro se. (Doc. 3, sealed.) The motion requests leave for Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP motion”). (Id.) Plaintiff also contemporaneously filed the requisite financial affidavit in support of his motion. (Doc. 3-1, sealed.) Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), a federal court may authorize 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.” To succeed on an IFP motion, “the movant must show a financial inability to pay the required filing fees.” Lister v. Dep’t of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312 (10th Cir. 2005). Proceeding IFP “in a civil case is a privilege, not a right – fundamental or otherwise.” White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1233 (10th Cir. 1998). The decision to grant or deny IFP status under § 1915 lies within the district court’s sound discretion. Engberg v. Wyoming, 265 F.3d 1109, 1122 (10th Cir. 2001). Based on the financial information provided by Plaintiff in his affidavit of financial status (Doc. 3-1, sealed), the Court finds that Plaintiff has shown an inability to pay the filing fee. Thus, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to proceed without prepayment of fees (Doc. 3). For purposes of this motion, the Court finds Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint sufficient to order service on Defendants. Therefore, the Clerk is directed to issue summons for service upon Defendants at the address indicated in the caption of Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint. Service of the summons and Complaint shall be effectuated by the United States Marshal or a deputy United States Marshal who are hereby appointed for such purpose pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed without Prepayment
of Fees (Doc. 3, sealed) is GRANTED. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), Plaintiff may commence this action without prepayment of fees. The Clerk shall prepare and issue summons to the U.S. Marshal or Deputy Marshal, who are appointed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated October 30, 2025, at Wichita, Kansas. /S/BROOKS G. SEVERSON Brooks G. Severson United States Magistrate Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Chad Kenyatta Leigh v. Labor Finders, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chad-kenyatta-leigh-v-labor-finders-et-al-ksd-2025.