Snider v. KanCare

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

VAUGHN LEE SNIDER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 23-1146-EFM-KGG ) KANCARE, ) ) Defendant. ) )

MEMORANDUM & ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES

In conjunction with his federal court Complaint (Doc. 1), Plaintiff Vaughn Lee Snider filed a Motion to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees (“IFP motion,” Doc. 2, sealed). In a prior Order, the Court found Plaintiff’s In Forma Pauperis application to be deficient and denied the same without prejudice to refiling. (Doc. 3.) The Court also found Plaintiff’s Complaint to be deficient and encouraged him to file an Amended Complaint within thirty days of receipt of the prior Order.1 (Id.) Plaintiff has since filed a financial affidavit (Doc. 5) and a supplement to his Complaint (Doc. 8). The Court will now consider the IFP motion in the context of the newly-filed financial affidavit. 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

1 Plaintiff subsequently filed a Motion to Amend Complaint, which the Court denied as moot because Plaintiff had been instructed to amend the Complaint, making it unnecessary for him to request permission to do so. (See Doc. 7, text Order.) 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 his 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 (Doc. 2). Due to concerns that the Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, discussed in the Court’s concurrently filed Report & Recommendation of Dismissal to the District Court, the Court will not direct service of process on Defendant.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for In Forma Pauperis status (Doc. 3) is GRANTED. The Clerk is not directed service of process on Defendant. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated at Wichita, Kansas, on this 30th day of August, 2023. /S/ BROOKS G. SEVERSON Brooks G. Severson United States Magistrate Judge