Chamita Griffin v. PepsiCo, Inc., ICIMS, Inc.

W.D. Texas

Chamita Griffin v. PepsiCo, Inc., ICIMS, Inc.

District Court, W.D. Texas·Decided February 10, 2026·No. 1:26-cv-00160·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

CHAMITA GRIFFIN, § Plaintiff § § v. § No. 1:26-CV-00160-ADA § PEPSICO, INC., ICIMS, INC., § Defendants §

ORDER ON IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS

Before the Court is Plaintiff Chamita Griffin’s Complaint and Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. See Dkts. 1; 2. The undersigned has reviewed Griffin’s financial affidavit and determined that she is indigent and should be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, without prepayment of fees. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS Griffin’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 2, is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court shall file Griffin’s complaint without prepayment of fees or costs or giving security therefor pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). This indigent status is granted subject to a later determination the action should be dismissed if the allegation of poverty is untrue or the action is found frivolous or malicious pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Griffin is further advised, although she has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, a court may, in its discretion, impose costs of court at the conclusion of this lawsuit, as in other cases. See Moore v. McDonald, 30 F.3d 616, 621 (5th Cir. 1994). Because Griffin has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required by standing order to review her Complaint under §1915(e)(2). After reviewing Griffin’s Complaint, the Court has determined that this case should not be dismissed as frivolous at this time. However, the Court cautions Griffin that the Court may make a determination in the future that the action should be dismissed because the allegation of poverty is untrue or the action is frivolous or malicious pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915¢(e). The Court FURTHER ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to issue summons and the United States Marshal to commence service of process, including service of Griffin’s complaint upon the named defendants under Rules 4 and 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. SIGNED February 10, 2026.

‘DUSTINM.HOWELL —“—i—CS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

CHAMITA GRIFFIN, § Plaintiff § § v. § No. 1:26-CV-00160-ADA § PEPSICO, INC., ICIMS, INC., § Defendants §

ORDER ON IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS

Before the Court is Plaintiff Chamita Griffin’s Complaint and Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. See Dkts. 1; 2. The undersigned has reviewed Griffin’s financial affidavit and determined that she is indigent and should be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, without prepayment of fees. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS Griffin’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, Dkt. 2, is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court shall file Griffin’s complaint without prepayment of fees or costs or giving security therefor pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). This indigent status is granted subject to a later determination the action should be dismissed if the allegation of poverty is untrue or the action is found frivolous or malicious pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Griffin is further advised, although she has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, a court may, in its discretion, impose costs of court at the conclusion of this lawsuit, as in other cases. See Moore v. McDonald, 30 F.3d 616, 621 (5th Cir. 1994). Because Griffin has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court is required by standing order to review her Complaint under §1915(e)(2). After reviewing Griffin’s Complaint, the Court has determined that this case should not be dismissed as frivolous at this time. However, the Court cautions Griffin that the Court may make a determination in the future that the action should be dismissed because the allegation of poverty is untrue or the action is frivolous or malicious pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915¢(e). The Court FURTHER ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to issue summons and the United States Marshal to commence service of process, including service of Griffin’s complaint upon the named defendants under Rules 4 and 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. SIGNED February 10, 2026.

‘DUSTINM.HOWELL —“—i—CS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Chamita Griffin v. PepsiCo, Inc., ICIMS, Inc., (W.D. Tex. 2026).

Pincite

Chamita Griffin v. PepsiCo, Inc., ICIMS, Inc. (Chamita Griffin v. PepsiCo, Inc., ICIMS, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related