Quinn v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

• Court: District Court, D. Kansas
• Decided: July 12, 2023
• Docket: 2:23-cv-02299
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

ANDREW QUINN,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 23-cv-2299-JWB-TJJ

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES Plaintiff Andrew Quinn, proceeding pro se, filed this action against the United States Department of Justice – Federal Bureau of Investigation and Justice Department Office of Civil Rights alleging violation of his civil rights.1 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (in forma pauperis) (ECF No. 3). Section 1915 of Title 28 of the United States Code allows the court to authorize the commencement of a civil action “without prepayment of fees or security therefor, by a person who submits an affidavit…[if] the person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.”2 To succeed on a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, the movant must show a financial inability to pay the required filing fees. The decision to grant or deny in forma pauperis status under section

1 Compl. at 3 (ECF No. 1). 2 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). 1915 lies within the “wide discretion” of the trial court.3 Based on the information contained in his Affidavit of Financial Status (ECF No. 3-1), Plaintiff has shown a financial inability to pay the required filing fee. Plaintiff currently is not and has not been employed, and he claims $0 in income and lists no assets.4 The Court finds Plaintiff has shown he has insufficient financial resources to pay the filing fee and he should be allowed to

proceed in forma pauperis in his action. Although Plaintiff is granted leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee, service of process may be withheld pending review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).5 While such review may occur at any time and the Court is not obligated to conduct the review before service of process,6 dismissals “are often made sua sponte prior to the issuance of process, so as to spare prospective defendants the inconvenience and expense of answering.”7 In this case, a pre-service review is appropriate as it appears Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted and therefore should be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed Without

Prepayment of Fees (ECF No. 3) is GRANTED, but service of summons and the Complaint upon Defendants shall be withheld pending further order of the Court.

3 Lister v. Dept. of Treas., 408 F.3d 1309, 1313 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting Martinez v. Kristi Kleaners, Inc., 364 F.3d 1305, 1306-07 (11th Cir. 2004)). 4 Aff. Fin. Stat. at 2, ECF No. 3-1. 5 See Fuller v. Myers, 123 F. App’x 365, 368 (10th Cir. 2005) (noting that the district courts may dismiss an action without service of process through the screening process of § 1915(e)). 6 See Buchheit v. Green, No. 12-4038-CM-KGS, 2012 WL 1673917, at *1 (D. Kan. May 14, 2012). 7 Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989). 2 A copy of this Order shall be mailed to Plaintiff. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated July 12, 2023, at Kansas City, Kansas. 08 □□ Yamba Teresa J. Fames U.S. Magistrate Judge