Bumphus, Jr. v. Unique Personnel Consultants et al

Filing 5

ORDER The Court GRANTS the MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3 ) and MOTION for Service of Process at Government Expense (Doc. 4 ) filed by John Dan Bumphus, Jr. Signed by Judge Staci M. Yandle on 4/14/2016. (hjg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

JOHN DAN BUMPHUS, JR.,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 16-cv-312-SMY-DGW

UNIQUE PERSSONEL CONSULTANTS, et.
al
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma
pauperis (Doc. 3) and Motion for Service of Process at Government's Expense (Doc. 4). A
federal court may permit an indigent party to proceed without pre-payment of fees. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(a)(1). Nevertheless, a court can deny a qualified plaintiff leave to file in forma pauperis or
can dismiss a case if the action is clearly frivolous or malicious or fails to state a claim. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii). An action fails to state a claim if it does not plead "enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The test for determining if an action is frivolous or without merit is
whether the plaintiff can make a rational argument on the law or facts in support of the claim.
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Corgain v. Miller, 708 F.2d 1241, 1247 (7th Cir.
1983). When assessing a petition to proceed in forma pauperis, a district court should inquire
into the merits of the claims, and if the court finds them to be frivolous, it should deny leave to
proceed in forma pauperis. Lucien v. Roegner, 682 F.2d 625, 626 (7th Cir. 1982).

Based on the documentation provided by Plaintiff, the Court is satisfied that he is
indigent. The Court has also conducted a preliminary review of Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 2)
and finds that it sets forth sufficient facts to state a plausible claim. Accordingly, Plaintiff's
Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis and Motion for Service of Process at Government's
Expense are GRANTED. However, that should it become apparent that the action is frivolous
or malicious at any time in the future, the Court may dismiss the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Plaintiff having been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court must order
service of process by a United States Marshal or Deputy Marshal or other specially appointed
person. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to prepare and issue,
for each named defendant, Form AO 440, Summons in a Civil Action, to Plaintiff and enclose
blank USM-285 forms for each named defendant. If Plaintiff wishes the United States Marshals
Service to serve process in this case, the Court DIRECTS Plaintiff to provide to the United
States Marshals Service the summons issued, the appropriately completed USM-285 forms and
sufficient copies of the complaint for service.
The Court further DIRECTS the United States Marshal, upon receipt of the
aforementioned documents from Plaintiff and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
4(c)(3), to serve a copy of summons, complaint and this order upon the defendants in any manner
consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, as directed by Plaintiff. Costs of service shall
be borne by the United States.

2 

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 14, 2016
s/ Staci M. Yandle
STACI M. YANDLE
DISTRICT JUDGE

3