Sallaj v. Feiner

D. Kansas

Sallaj v. Feiner

DecidedAugust 23, 2023

Docket6:23-cv-01172

StatusUnknown

This text of Sallaj v. Feiner (Sallaj v. Feiner) 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.

Bluebook

Sallaj v. Feiner, (D. Kan. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

LISA SALLAJ, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 23-1172-EFM-KGG ) ) MICHAEL A. FEINER and ) STEINGER, GREENE & FEINER, ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Lisa Sallaj’s Motion to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees, which is a motion requesting leave for Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). (Doc. 3). 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 her Motion and Affidavit of Financial Status, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s financial situation warrants waiving the filing fee. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to proceed without prepayment of fees. Due to concerns that the Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to establish complete diversity, the Court will not direct service of process on the Defendants until the Court screens the Complaint for merit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees is granted. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), Plaintiff may commence this action without prepayment of fees. The U.S. Marshals Service shall withhold service on Defendants until further order of the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 23, 2023. /s BROOKS SEVERSON Brooks Severson United States Magistrate Judge

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

LISA SALLAJ, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 23-1172-EFM-KGG ) ) MICHAEL A. FEINER and ) STEINGER, GREENE & FEINER, ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Lisa Sallaj’s Motion to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees, which is a motion requesting leave for Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). (Doc. 3). 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 her Motion and Affidavit of Financial Status, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s financial situation warrants waiving the filing fee. Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to proceed without prepayment of fees. Due to concerns that the Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts to establish complete diversity, the Court will not direct service of process on the Defendants until the Court screens the Complaint for merit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed without Prepayment of Fees is granted. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1), Plaintiff may commence this action without prepayment of fees. The U.S. Marshals Service shall withhold service on Defendants until further order of the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 23, 2023. /s BROOKS SEVERSON Brooks Severson United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Sallaj v. Feiner, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sallaj-v-feiner-ksd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack