Malik Sanders v. Resurgent/LVNV Funding

D. South Dakota

Malik Sanders v. Resurgent/LVNV Funding

DecidedApril 2, 2026

Docket4:26-cv-04028

StatusUnknown

This text of Malik Sanders v. Resurgent/LVNV Funding (Malik Sanders v. Resurgent/LVNV Funding) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. South Dakota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Malik Sanders v. Resurgent/LVNV Funding, (D.S.D. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

_ DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION

MALIK SANDERS, 4:26-CV-04028-ECS Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S Vs. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED . IN FORMA PAUPERIS RESURGENT/LVNV FUNDING, Defendant. .

Plaintiff, Malik Sanders, filed a pro se lawsuit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Doc. 1. Sanders moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 2. A federal court may authorize the commencement of any lawsuit without prepayment of fees when an applicant submits an affidavit stating he or she is unable to pay the costs of the lawsuit. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). “[I]n forma pauperis status does not require a litigant to demonstrate absolute destitution.” Lee v. McDonald’s Corp., 231 F.3d 456, 459 (8th Cir. 2000). But in forma pauperis status is a privilege, not a right. Williams v. McKenzie, 834 F.2d 152, 154 (8th Cir. 1987) (citation omitted). Determining whether an applicant is sufficiently impoverished to qualify to proceed in forma pauperis under § 1915 is committed to the sound discretion of the district court. Cross vy. Gen. Motors Corp., 721 F.2d 1152, 1157 (8th Cir. 1983). After review of Sanders’ financial affidavit, this Court finds that he has insufficient funds to pay the filing fee. Thus, Sanders’ motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Doc. 2, is granted. When a plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must screen the complaint to determine whether should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See □

Martin-Trigona v. Stewart, 691 F.2d 856, 857 (8th Cir. 1982) (per curiam); see also Key v. Does, 217 F. Supp. 3d 1006, 1007 (ED. Ark. 2016). Thus, the next stage in the proceeding is for the Court to conduct a screening to determine if Sanders’ Complaint is “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This Court will enter a separate order screening Sanders’ Complaint in due course. Thus, it is ORDERED that Sanders’ Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Doc. 2, is granted. DATED this 2nd day of April, 2026. BY THE COURT: Ss

CC, SCHULT - UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

_ DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION

MALIK SANDERS, 4:26-CV-04028-ECS Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S Vs. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED . IN FORMA PAUPERIS RESURGENT/LVNV FUNDING, Defendant. .

Plaintiff, Malik Sanders, filed a pro se lawsuit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Doc. 1. Sanders moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Doc. 2. A federal court may authorize the commencement of any lawsuit without prepayment of fees when an applicant submits an affidavit stating he or she is unable to pay the costs of the lawsuit. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). “[I]n forma pauperis status does not require a litigant to demonstrate absolute destitution.” Lee v. McDonald’s Corp., 231 F.3d 456, 459 (8th Cir. 2000). But in forma pauperis status is a privilege, not a right. Williams v. McKenzie, 834 F.2d 152, 154 (8th Cir. 1987) (citation omitted). Determining whether an applicant is sufficiently impoverished to qualify to proceed in forma pauperis under § 1915 is committed to the sound discretion of the district court. Cross vy. Gen. Motors Corp., 721 F.2d 1152, 1157 (8th Cir. 1983). After review of Sanders’ financial affidavit, this Court finds that he has insufficient funds to pay the filing fee. Thus, Sanders’ motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Doc. 2, is granted. When a plaintiff is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, a court must screen the complaint to determine whether should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See □

Martin-Trigona v. Stewart, 691 F.2d 856, 857 (8th Cir. 1982) (per curiam); see also Key v. Does, 217 F. Supp. 3d 1006, 1007 (ED. Ark. 2016). Thus, the next stage in the proceeding is for the Court to conduct a screening to determine if Sanders’ Complaint is “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). This Court will enter a separate order screening Sanders’ Complaint in due course. Thus, it is ORDERED that Sanders’ Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Doc. 2, is granted. DATED this 2nd day of April, 2026. BY THE COURT: Ss

CC, SCHULT - UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Malik Sanders v. Resurgent/LVNV Funding, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/malik-sanders-v-resurgentlvnv-funding-sdd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack