Norris v. Southland Casino et al

Filing 4

ORDER granting 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; directing the Clerk to prepare a summons for Southland Casino; and directing the U.S. Marshal to serve Ms. Norris's 2 complaint, along with a summons, on both defendants' agents for service pursuant to the terms of this Order without prepayment of fees and costs or security. Signed by Chief Judge Kristine G. Baker on 9/3/2024. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
JENNIFER NORRIS
v.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 4:24-cv-00522-KGB

SOUTHLAND CASINO, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Before the Court is plaintiff Jennifer Norris’s pro se complaint under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (Dkt. No. 2). Ms. Norris’s complaint also mentions disability discrimination,
which the Court construes as a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42
U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. (Id., ¶ 8). Also before the Court is Ms. Norris’s application to proceed
without prepaying fees or costs (Dkt. No. 1). For the following reasons, the Court grants Ms.
Norris’s application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs (Dkt. No. 1).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the decision to grant or deny an application to proceed without
prepaying fees or costs is within the sound discretion of the district court. Cross v. General Motors
Corp., 721 F.2d 1152, 1157 (8th Cir. 1983) (citations omitted). Although a claimant need not be
“completely destitute” to take advantage of the in forma pauperis statute, he must show that paying
the filing fee would result in an undue financial hardship. In re Williamson, 786 F.2d 1336, 1338
(8th Cir. 1986). The Court finds that Ms. Norris does not have the ability to pay the filing fee
without suffering an undue financial hardship and grants her application to proceed without
prepaying fees or costs (Dkt. No. 1).
The Court acknowledges that Ms. Norris is not incarcerated. Pursuant to the Prison
Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1915, however, the Court must screen Ms. Norris’s
complaint to determine whether it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief

may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. See
28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2); Key v. Does, 217 F. Supp. 3d 1006, 1007 (E.D. Ark. 2016) (“Although
some district courts have limited section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) pre-service dismissal to litigants who
are prisoners, . . . all of the circuit courts to address the issue have held that nonprisoner complaints
can be screened and dismissed pursuant to section 1915(e)(2)(B).”) (citing Michau v. Charleston
Cty., S.C., 434 F.3d 725, 728 (4th Cir. 2006); Lister v. Dep't of Treasury, 408 F.3d 1309, 1312
(10th Cir. 2005); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 n.7 (9th Cir. 2000); McGore v.
Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608 (6th Cir. 1997) overruled on other grounds by LaFountain v.
Harry, 716 F.3d 944, 951 (6th Cir. 2013)).
Reading Ms. Norris’s pro se complaint liberally, she alleges Title VII and ADA claims
against defendants Southland Casino and Delaware North (Dkt. No. 2). Accordingly, service on
the defendants is appropriate. The Clerk is directed to prepare a summons for Southland Casino
to be served on its registered agent for service, Cogency Global, Inc., 1215 Twin Lakes Drive,
Little Rock, Arkansas, 72205. The Clerk is also directed to prepare a summons for Delaware
North, to be served on its registered agent for service, Cogency Global, Inc., 122 East 42nd Street,
18th Floor, New York, NY, 10168. The Court directs that the United States Marshal serve Ms.
Norris’s complaint, along with a summons on both defendants’ agents for service, pursuant to the
terms of this Order without prepayment of fees and costs or security (Dkt. No. 2).
It is so ordered, this 3rd day of September, 2024.

_______________________________
Kristine G. Baker
Chief United States District Judge

2