Scott v. Eighteenth Judicial District Court

• Court: District Court, D. Kansas
• Decided: April 17, 2025
• Docket: 6:24-cv-01193
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

ANTHONY-LAMONT SCOTT, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 24-1193-JWB-GEB ) EIGHTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT) SEDGWICK COUNTY KANSAS, ) MARC BENNETT, SEDGWICK COUNTY ) SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND WICHITA POLICE ) DEPARTMENT, ) ) ) Defendants. ) ) ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (ECF No. 3, sealed) and supporting Affidavit of Financial Status (ECF No. 3-1, sealed). For the reasons outlined below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 3, sealed) in the event his claims are allowed to proceed by the District Judge. Under 28 U.S.C. §1915(a), the Court has discretion to authorize filing of a civil case “without prepayment of fees or security thereof, by a person who submits an affidavit that . . . the person is unable to pay such fees or give security thereof.”1 “Proceeding in forma

1 Barnett ex rel. Barnett v. Nw. Sch., No. 00-2499-KHV, 2000 WL 1909625, at *1 (D. Kan. Dec. 26, 2000) (citing Cabrera v. Horgas, 173 F.3d 863, at *1 (10th Cir. 1999); Cross v. General Motors Corp., 721 F.2d 1152, 1157 (8th Cir. 1983); and Buggs v. Riverside Hosp., No. 97-1088-WEB, 1997 WL 321289, at *1 (D. Kan. Apr. 9, 1997)). pauperis in a civil case ‘is a privilege, not a right-fundamental or otherwise.’”2 However, there is a “liberal policy” toward permitting proceedings in forma pauperis “when necessary to ensure that the courts are available to all citizens, not just those who can afford

to pay.”3 To determine whether a party is eligible to file without prepayment of the fee, the court reviews a party’s financial affidavit and compares their monthly expenses with the monthly income disclosed therein.4 After careful review of Plaintiff’s financial affidavit5 and comparing Plaintiff’s listed monthly income and expenses, the Court finds he is

financially unable to pay the filing fee. Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 3, sealed) is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated April 16, 2025 at Wichita, Kansas. s/ Gwynne E. Birzer GWYNNE E. BIRZER United States Magistrate Judge

2 Barnett, at *1 (quoting White v. Colorado, 157 F.3d 1226, 1233 (10th Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1008 (1999)). 3 Alexander v. Wichita Hous. Auth., No. 07-1149-JTM, 2007 WL 2316902, at *1 (D. Kan. Aug. 9, 2007) (citing Yellen v. Cooper, 82 F.2d 1471 (10th Cir.1987)). 4 Id. (citing Patillo v. N. Am. Van Lines, Inc., No. 02-2162-JWL, 2002 WL 1162684, at *1 (D. Kan. April. 15, 2002); Webb v. Cessna Aircraft, No. 00-2229-JWL, 2000 WL 1025575, at *1 (D. Kan. July 17, 2000)). 5 ECF No. 3-1, sealed.