Brown v. Equifax Information Services, LLC et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, granting 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Grace E. Brown. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 5/9/2017. (jdh)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
GRACE BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 17-cv-402-JPG-SCW

EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES and
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Grace Brown’s motion for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1). A federal court may permit an indigent party to proceed
without prepayment 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). 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). 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). When assessing a petition to proceed in forma pauperis, a
district court should inquire into the merits of the petitioner’s 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).
The Court is satisfied from Brown’s affidavit that she is indigent. The Court further finds
that the action is not clearly frivolous or malicious or that it fails to state a claim. Accordingly,

the Court GRANTS the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1). However, the
Court reminds Brown that she has only been excused from prepayment of fees. Pursuant to
Local Rule 3.1(c)(1), by applying for in forma pauperis status, she and her attorney are deemed
to have entered into a stipulation that the recovery, if any, secured in the action shall be paid to
the Clerk of Court, who shall pay therefrom all unpaid costs taxed against plaintiff and remit the
balance to plaintiff.
The 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); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).
If the plaintiff wishes the United States Marshals Service to serve process in this case, the
Court DIRECTS the plaintiff to provide to the United States Marshals Service the summons
issued in this case, 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 the 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 the plaintiff. Costs of service
shall be borne by the United States.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 9, 2017
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE